The Nature of God?

[John92]

So I’m interested in strengthening my faith.

I think the existence of a deity is fairly well-proven by more modern restatements of the cosmological argument. If matter is the “first cause” then, by the laws of physics, everything would be at or at least infinitesimally close to a state of rest. The way the universe is currently expanding, etc, point to a point in time that the universe, with all its laws, originated. Therefore there must be an originator, who is God.

So far so good. And I have convinced many people of the existence of some sort of God using this very argument.

But then the question comes up - how do we know who God is/what he wants, if anything? We can prove the existence of God, but how do we prove that God loves us, has a special plan for human beings, desires worship, desires adherence to a certain moral code, etc. etc. etc.?

I have some rough ideas but haven’t found a real knock-em-dead argument for the Christian/Muslim concept of God.

One argument would be the mere fact that he’s a creator. If he’s a creator then he must have something like “ideas” and “plans”. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t act, though clearly he did act since the universe exists.

Another would be free-will. Since free-will exists (I know that’s opening up a whole new can of worms but most people do accept free-will so I usually don’t have to defend it), it must have come from God. God must have given us these free-wills, souls, because they couldn’t arise from material processes.

There’s also the argument that, since morality exists, and is something outside ourselves, that, too, like free-will, must come from God and can point toward his nature. But to be honest it’s hard to argue for absolute morality these days. It’s too easy to say “morality is nothing but genetic impulses that have furthered our survival as a species”. That’s one argument I can’t adequately answer atm, so if you can help there as well it’d be appreciated. Also even if you can prove the existence of absolute morality it’s hard to convince people as to what it entails in the details. Like that contraception is wrong or whatever.

Thanks! And I’m not much of a philosopher, just curious, so be patient with me and my dumb questions please FWIW I have looked in other places.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s too easy to say “morality is nothing but genetic impulses that have furthered our survival as a species”…

If morality is nothing but genetic impulses that have furthered our survival as a species there is no reason why we shouldn’t kill anyone who is are mentally and physically retarded because they prejudice the survival of our species. We should ensure - like Hitler - that only the fittest survive…

 

[wanstronian]

If morality is nothing but genetic impulses that have furthered our survival as a species there is no reason why we shouldn’t kill anyone who is are mentally and physically retarded because they prejudice the survival of our species. We should ensure - like Hitler - that only the fittest survive…

Godwin’s law in action…

That approach, of course, ignores the valid evolutionary theory for why animals don’t just kill or abandon their injured or helpless herd members, unless to do so is necessary for the immediate survival of the rest of the herd. There is plenty of observable, documented evidence for this theory in action, too.

It also ignores the rather obvious point that a single disabled person is unlikely to prejudice the survival of the human race. Substitute, “a single disabled person” with, “a thousand disabled people,” and the point holds true.

John, the reason you find it hard to answer this argument is because there is no evidence that suggests it is not absolutely true.

At the risk of giving Tony high blood pressure, I’d be interested in your rationale for the statement, “Since free-will exists … it must have come from God” since I am unable to reconcile the link between an arbitrary intangible attribute, and the existence of an all-powerful creator.

 

[tonyrey]

That approach, of course, ignores the valid evolutionary theory for why animals don’t just kill or abandon their injured or helpless herd members, unless to do so is necessary for the immediate survival of the rest of the herd. There is plenty of observable, documented evidence for this theory in action, too.

John, note that this version of evolution (i.e.NeoDarwinism) has been rejected by many scientists because there is no observable, documented evidence for abiogenesis or the theory that human beings have been produced by random mutations and natural selection.

It also ignores the rather obvious point that a single disabled person is unlikely to prejudice the survival of the human race. Substitute, “a single disabled person” with, “a thousand disabled people,” and the point holds true.

If morality is nothing but genetic impulses that have furthered our survival as a species there is no reason why we shouldn’t kill anyone who is mentally and physically retarded… or anyone else for matter… After all we just strange freaks of nature who have emerged fortuitously for no reason or purpose whatsoever.

John, the reason you find it hard to answer this argument is because there is no evidence that suggests it is not absolutely true.

Note the dogmatic use of “absolutely”…

At the risk of giving W high blood pressure, I’d be interested in his rationale for the statement, “Since free-will exists … it must have come from material objects” since I am unable to reconcile the link between an intangible attribute of which we have direct experience and the existence of material objects.

 

[tonyrey]

But then the question comes up - how do we know who God is/what he wants, if anything? We can prove the existence of God, but how do we prove that God loves us, has a special plan for human beings, desires worship, desires adherence to a certain moral code, etc. etc. etc.?

As you are new to this forum you have probably missed my contribution to this subject:

Belief in Design implies that there are definite purposes in life. Each of us has a particular vocation for which we have specific talents and abilities. We have an obligation to **develop our potentialities **to the best of our ability because life is a gift. We persevere in the search for truth and meaning because the universe is rational and everything ultimately fits into an intelligible pattern. Purpose is not a rare phenomenon but the dominant feature of existence. Good fulfils purpose and evil frustrates it. Justice reflects the intrinsic worth of every person and after death we shall all receive exactly what we deserve. We are all free, equal, brothers and sisters with a right to life because we exist by Design. We exist in order to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love - ourselves or others.

We know that the Designer of this vast and magnificent universe must have immense insight, power and creativity. We associate insight, power and creativity not with the brain but with the mind. Physicalists believe the mind cannot exist without the brain but there is no rational basis for this assumption. There is no evidence that the brain is conscious of itself, has insight into its own activity, has free will or the power to control itself. That is why human beings have always distinguished the mind from the brain.

Our primary data are our thoughts, feelings and sensations. We infer that the body exists from the evidence of our senses but the fundamental reality is our intangible stream of thoughts, emotions and decisions. The power of the mind and the intangible nature of all that we consider most precious - truth, goodness, freedom and love - imply that a Designer is the only adequate explanation of the Design in the universe. The pursuit of the truth in both philosophy and science presupposes the existence of purpose, the power of intelligence and the intelligibility of the universe:

"The highest formal unity, which is based on concepts of reason alone, is the systematical and purposeful unity of things, and it is the speculative interest of reason which makes it necessary to regard all order in the world as if it had originated in the purpose of a supreme wisdom. Such a principle opens to our reason in the field of experience quite new views, how to connect the things of the world according to teleological laws and thus to arrive at their greatest systematic unity…

For the purely speculative use of reason, therefore, the Supreme Being, remains, no doubt, an ideal only but an ideal without a flaw, a concept which finishes and crowns the whole of human knowledge and the objective reality of which, though it cannot be proved can neither be disproved in that way." (Immanuel Kant)

Design is the most powerful, comprehensive and fertile explanation of the order and intelligibility of the universe, the exquisite richness and variety of nature, the origin and infinite value of life, the progressive development of living organisms, the existence of rational beings with their power of self-determination, their transcendence of their environment, their ability to distinguish good and evil, and their capacity for love and self-sacrifice. The success of science demonstrates the superiority of intelligence over blind forces like random mutations and natural selection.

Design accounts for all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, justice, love, the right to life and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. It is a glorious vision of reality which is in accord with the deepest yearnings and the highest aspirations of the human spirit. It interprets evolution not as the descent of man but as the ascent to God. It is verified by the power and ultimate responsibility of each individual for his or her destiny. To reject Design implies that rational, free, conscious, moral persons have been produced by the blind interplay of irrational, determined, unconscious and amoral forces. To deny the primacy of intelligence is to undermine the validity of reason - the logical consequence of which is total scepticism and nihilism.

 

[wanstronian]

John, note that this version of evolution (i.e.NeoDarwinism) has been rejected by many scientists because there is no observable, documented evidence for abiogenesis or the theory that human beings have been produced by random mutations and natural selection.

I would be interested in your references for both parts of that statement - ideally, the percentage of scientists that have rejected Neo-D, and the reference to an accepted scientific paper that rejects the evidence for it.

If morality is nothing but genetic impulses that have furthered our survival as a species there is no reason why we shouldn’t kill anyone who is mentally and physically retarded… or anyone else for matter… After all we just strange freaks of nature who have emerged fortuitously for no reason or purpose whatsoever.

Again, you are not in possession of the facts, only of a desire for ID to be true. I suspect that is why you haven’t bothered reading up on natural selection - because you’re just convinced it can’t be true. After all, you already have the answer you want, right?

Note the dogmatic use of “absolutely”…

You’re right, but I think my phrasing left room for doubt. I’ll reword from about half way through. “… there is no evidence that morality comes from anywhere other than as a result of the physical process of natural selection.”

At the risk of giving W high blood pressure, I’d be interested in his rationale for the statement, “Since free-will exists … it must have come from material objects” since I am unable to reconcile the link between an intangible attribute of which we have direct experience and the existence of material objects.

I’ll be happy to provide that rationale, just as soon as you point out exactly where I made the statement.

 

[liquidpele]

So I’m interested in strengthening my faith.

I think the existence of a deity is fairly well-proven by more modern restatements of the cosmological argument. If matter is the “first cause” then, by the laws of physics, everything would be at or at least infinitesimally close to a state of rest. The way the universe is currently expanding, etc, point to a point in time that the universe, with all its laws, originated. Therefore there must be an originator, who is God.

So far so good. And I have convinced many people of the existence of some sort of God using this very argument.

But then the question comes up - how do we know who God is/what he wants, if anything? We can prove the existence of God, but how do we prove that God loves us, has a special plan for human beings, desires worship, desires adherence to a certain moral code, etc. etc. etc.?

I have some rough ideas but haven’t found a real knock-em-dead argument for the Christian/Muslim concept of God.

One argument would be the mere fact that he’s a creator. If he’s a creator then he must have something like “ideas” and “plans”. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t act, though clearly he did act since the universe exists.

Another would be free-will. Since free-will exists (I know that’s opening up a whole new can of worms but most people do accept free-will so I usually don’t have to defend it), it must have come from God. God must have given us these free-wills, souls, because they couldn’t arise from material processes.

There’s also the argument that, since morality exists, and is something outside ourselves, that, too, like free-will, must come from God and can point toward his nature. But to be honest it’s hard to argue for absolute morality these days. It’s too easy to say “morality is nothing but genetic impulses that have furthered our survival as a species”. That’s one argument I can’t adequately answer atm, so if you can help there as well it’d be appreciated. Also even if you can prove the existence of absolute morality it’s hard to convince people as to what it entails in the details. Like that contraception is wrong or whatever.

Thanks! And I’m not much of a philosopher, just curious, so be patient with me and my dumb questions please FWIW I have looked in other places.

Well… I happen to believe that morality is biological and sociological, but it appears that is not the answer you are looking for. My understanding is that most Christians hold God to be the source of morality… thus whatever (and I mean anything) God says is moral, regardless of what we personally think about the subject. Of course… this doesn’t do too much to help us since we live in a complicated world and don’t have God down here answering yes and no to things… but that’s at least how it was always explained to me.

I’ll leave your other comments about evidence showing a God alone and just say I disagree with your conclusions, as it appears you have already made up your mind on the subject.

 

[tonyrey]

My understanding is that most Christians hold God to be the source of morality… thus whatever (and I mean anything) God says is moral, regardless of what we personally think about the subject.

I’m afraid you are mistaken. We Christians believe God is the source of truth, goodness and love because God is truth, goodness and love, the Source of everything we cherish. We also believe the teaching of Jesus is self-evidently true even for some one who does not believe in God because it is the finest moral code ever given to mankind which He put into practice in the way He lived and died…

Of course… this doesn’t do too much to help us since we live in a complicated world and don’t have God down here answering yes and no to things… but that’s at least how it was always explained to me.

The whole point of life is to choose for ourselves how to live and not just obey rules blindly. No one has done more for us than the carpenter of Nazareth who chose to let Himself be crucified rather be caught up in the vortex of evil, hatred and violence. As Christians we have His guiding principle of love because He has told us we are all created by a loving Father - not merely strange freaks of nature.

 

[tonyrey]

I would be interested in your references for both parts of that statement - ideally, the percentage of scientists that have rejected Neo-D, and the reference to an accepted scientific paper that rejects the evidence for it.

Do you base the truth on percentages?
“Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life.”
J T Trevors, D L Abel
Cell Biology International

Again, you are not in possession of the facts, only of a desire for ID to be true.

That is an argumentum ad hominem. I could say that you are not in possession of the facts about the spiritual life and are motivated by a desire for atheism to be true.

I suspect that is why you haven’t bothered reading up on natural selection - because you’re just convinced it can’t be true.

Another argumentum ad hominem. It is also false : My doctoral thesis contains a detailed analysis of the inadequacy of NeoDarwinism.

After all, you already have the answer you want, right?

Your sarcasm suggests you already have the answer you want…

 

[Convert66]

Is “morality” a physical property? If not, then it points beyond a strictly physical explanation for its existence. We may say that it is an emergent property owing it’s origin to strictly physical properties, but then we have merely said that the whole is greater then the sum of its parts, which leads us back to the simplest explanation that morality transcends strict physicality.

 

[tonyrey]

Is “morality” a physical property? If not, then it points beyond a strictly physical explanation for its existence. We may say that it is an emergent property owing it’s origin to strictly physical properties, but then we have merely said that the whole is greater then the sum of its parts, which leads us back to the simplest explanation that morality transcends strict physicality.

Emergence, or the imposing term “supervenience”, is a description rather than an explanation. When some one explains how inanimate objects can become good or evil I shall change my mind about lots of things…

 

[wanstronian]

Do you base the truth on percentages?

No, just interested in you quantifying your statement that “many scientists” have rejected Neo-Darwinism. Without quantification the statement is of little value.

That is an argumentum ad hominem.

And that is your standard response whenever I point out that your arguments are flawed, so you’ll forgive me if I don’t gasp in horror.

I could say that you are not in possession of the facts about the spiritual life and are motivated by a desire for atheism to be true.

You could, but you would be in error on two counts: Firstly, there are no established facts about any kind of spiritual life, not least the “fact” of its existence. Consequently nobodyis in possession of the facts. Secondly, atheism is not an emotional stance, purely a factual one. If God were proved to exist, that would cause me no problem.

Another argumentum ad hominem. It is also false : My doctoral thesis contains a detailed analysis of the inadequacy of NeoDarwinism.

What is the overall subject of your thesis? And the programme of study under which you have produced it? This may possibly have a bearing on your conclusions so I think it’s important to know.

Your sarcasm suggests you already have the answer you want…

Again, I don’t “want” any answer other than the correct one. There is no way of establishing this answer at present time, hence my position is evidence- rather than hypothesis-based.

I notice you make no further comment on the statement you ascribed to me. Shall I take that as a retraction?

Anyway, I have no time at the moment to continue this, or any other discussion. I’ll be back on these forums in a week or so. Have fun.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Firstly, there are no established facts about any kind of spiritual life, not least the “fact” of its existence. Consequently nobodyis in possession of the facts. Secondly, atheism is not an emotional stance, purely a factual one. If God were proved to exist, that would cause me no problem.

You’re misusing the word “fact”. A fact is something that is, not something that we know. If there are “spiritual” realities (that is, physical realities that we cannot observe), they are facts, whether or not anyone believes them to be true. But, either way, someone (either the theist or atheist) is in possession of the facts; they just don’t **know **that they possess the facts.

And what on earth does “atheism is a factual stance” mean? That atheists in fact don’t believe in God? But that is obvious. What are you getting at?

 

[fhansen]

So I’m interested in strengthening my faith.

I think the existence of a deity is fairly well-proven by more modern restatements of the cosmological argument. If matter is the “first cause” then, by the laws of physics, everything would be at or at least infinitesimally close to a state of rest. The way the universe is currently expanding, etc, point to a point in time that the universe, with all its laws, originated. Therefore there must be an originator, who is God.

So far so good. And I have convinced many people of the existence of some sort of God using this very argument.

But then the question comes up - how do we know who God is/what he wants, if anything? We can prove the existence of God, but how do we prove that God loves us, has a special plan for human beings, desires worship, desires adherence to a certain moral code, etc. etc. etc.?

I have some rough ideas but haven’t found a real knock-em-dead argument for the Christian/Muslim concept of God.

One argument would be the mere fact that he’s a creator. If he’s a creator then he must have something like “ideas” and “plans”. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t act, though clearly he did act since the universe exists.

Another would be free-will. Since free-will exists (I know that’s opening up a whole new can of worms but most people do accept free-will so I usually don’t have to defend it), it must have come from God. God must have given us these free-wills, souls, because they couldn’t arise from material processes.

There’s also the argument that, since morality exists, and is something outside ourselves, that, too, like free-will, must come from God and can point toward his nature. But to be honest it’s hard to argue for absolute morality these days. It’s too easy to say “morality is nothing but genetic impulses that have furthered our survival as a species”. That’s one argument I can’t adequately answer atm, so if you can help there as well it’d be appreciated. Also even if you can prove the existence of absolute morality it’s hard to convince people as to what it entails in the details. Like that contraception is wrong or whatever.

Thanks! And I’m not much of a philosopher, just curious, so be patient with me and my dumb questions please FWIW I have looked in other places.

One problem is, if the behavior of the individual-or a collection of individuals-is the standard by which morality is defined, rather than by some external objective standard, then even though the majority may not rape, kill, or steal, why would many-sometimes even en masse-ever do such things? Either evil is an illusion or the free will can and does override an objective moral standard that would otherwise resist evil. This places man in a very different position from the rest of observable creation. Evolution would be a very sloppy “god” if it were responsible for creating such inconsistency. Only the existence of a “mind”, a Creator who had a conscious purpose for allowing creation to decide for themselves whether or not to make moral determinations for themselves best explains this state of affairs.

All rational arguments for or against God aside, the God who created you communicates with or interacts with you internally and that’s where you’ll meet Him. He responds to the smallest degree of faith, often initially exercised by the smallest amount of sincerity and humility which causes us to ask Him to reveal Himself. And little by little-sometimes in dramatic ways and sometimes more mundane- He does so and over time we find that His nature just happens to correspond quite well with the God proclaimed by the Catholic faith-the God who Himself is humble of heart while infinitely powerful, most of all the God who is love.

 

[PJM]

=John-So I’m interested in strengthening my faith.

But then the question comes up - how do we know who God is/what he wants, if anything? We can prove the existence of God, but how do we prove that God loves us, has a special plan for human beings, desires worship, desires adherence to a certain moral code, etc. etc. etc.?

***The greatest evidence that their is a God, that this God is good, and this God loves us and desires love in return. [Isaiah 43: 7 and 21, Eph. Ch. 1] lies in mans capacity to LOVE. For love is more than an emotion, it is a conscience decision, involving mind, intellect and freewill. All of which are spiritual attributes of God, angels and man, and given to no other created species.

Because the Origin of Spiritual THINGS must be some other Spiritual Thing [we call God] and cannot be evolved or passed from man’s humanity, mans MATTER, we can know God exist. We can by logical use of these gifts determine that they are given to us for a purpose; although that purpose is not easy to define, we didcover that we have the capacity to love and can seek the origin of that gift, which leads to God.***

I have some rough ideas but haven’t found a real knock-em-dead argument for the Christian/Muslim concept of God.

There’s also the argument that, since morality exists, and is something outside ourselves, that, too, like free-will, must come from God and can point toward his nature. But to be honest it’s hard to argue for absolute morality these days. It’s too easy to say “morality is nothing but genetic impulses that have furthered our survival as a species”. That’s one argument I can’t adequately answer atm, so if you can help there as well it’d be appreciated. Also even if you can prove the existence of absolute morality it’s hard to convince people as to what it entails in the details. Like that contraception is wrong or whatever.

I certainly agree that the acceptance of moral absolutes are in these times difficult to prove, yet everyone has a conscience, an inner voice that affirms or condems privately ones actions. Everyone can, that is has the capacity to know good from evil, right from wrong. The more often one chooses to ignore this “morality meter” the less effective and noticeable are it readings. But they remain and never disapear.

That too is a sign of the Goodness and love of God.

Love and prayers,

 

[jewells17]

So I’m interested in strengthening my faith.

I think the existence of a deity is fairly well-proven by more modern restatements of the cosmological argument. If matter is the “first cause” then, by the laws of physics, everything would be at or at least infinitesimally close to a state of rest. The way the universe is currently expanding, etc, point to a point in time that the universe, with all its laws, originated. Therefore there must be an originator, who is God.

So far so good. And I have convinced many people of the existence of some sort of God using this very argument.

But then the question comes up - how do we know who God is/what he wants, if anything? We can prove the existence of God, but how do we prove that God loves us, has a special plan for human beings, desires worship, desires adherence to a certain moral code, etc. etc. etc.?

You have great questions and when I worshipped with Quakers for many years I found God’s love and existence proven experientially. His existence and love came full force into my life after I said…“help!”…and He did. I was so anti-Catholic and Jesus. But…www.christianbridge.com and www.christiananswersforthenewage.org or com…the testimonies of these two people say everything. Pray for them and all of us!
I have some rough ideas but haven’t found a real knock-em-dead argument for the Christian/Muslim concept of God.

One argument would be the mere fact that he’s a creator. If he’s a creator then he must have something like “ideas” and “plans”. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t act, though clearly he did act since the universe exists.

Another would be free-will. Since free-will exists (I know that’s opening up a whole new can of worms but most people do accept free-will so I usually don’t have to defend it), it must have come from God. God must have given us these free-wills, souls, because they couldn’t arise from material processes.

There’s also the argument that, since morality exists, and is something outside ourselves, that, too, like free-will, must come from God and can point toward his nature. But to be honest it’s hard to argue for absolute morality these days. It’s too easy to say “morality is nothing but genetic impulses that have furthered our survival as a species”. That’s one argument I can’t adequately answer atm, so if you can help there as well it’d be appreciated. Also even if you can prove the existence of absolute morality it’s hard to convince people as to what it entails in the details. Like that contraception is wrong or whatever.

Thanks! And I’m not much of a philosopher, just curious, so be patient with me and my dumb questions please FWIW I have looked in other places.

 

[greylorn]

Your O.P. has produced a predictable result, lots of opinions emanating from nooks and crannies in the woodwork. That is because you have asked an absurd question.

No human being can responsibly answer the question, “What is the nature of a person?”
The question is too vague, and “persons” are way too variable. How can any human being claim to know the nature of an entity infinitely more intelligent and interesting than any human being? That would be (kind of) like expecting a lab rat to produce a report analyzing the personality of a research scientist.

All but the most mindless of Biblical scholars recognize that God appears here and there in various forms. Is the God who ordered the terminations of peaceful citizens at Jericho the same merciful God of the new testament?

Questions which cannot be answered by recourse to logic, reason, or even meager evidence are what keep religions well on the fringe of responsible philosophical thought. The answers to such questions come from dogma, which come from ideas that people made up and adopted for their emotional appeal or political efficacy. .

A better question might be, “What are the properties of God?” but that would be off topic, so I’m going to start another thread on that topic. That’s where you’ll go if you actually want to learn anything.

 

[PJM]

=greylorn-Your O.P. has produced a predictable result, lots of opinions emanating from nooks and crannies in the woodwork. That is because you have asked an absurd question.

No human being can responsibly answer the question, “What is the nature of a person?”
The question is too vague, and “persons” are way too variable. How can any human being claim to know the nature of an entity infinitely more intelligent and interesting than any human being? That would be (kind of) like expecting a lab rat to produce a report analyzing the personality of a research scientist…

***My dear friend in Christ,

I seldom offer a personal opinion on THE CAF Forum, but shall do so now for the sake of offering a different perspective.

Your opinion, while well thought out seems to ME, to be subjective and a bit secularized.

It overlooks what I THOUGHT would be an oblivious additional and yet primary reason for the Incarnation of God. Namely the desire from God to establish a personal relationship with created man.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen, in his book; “The Life of Christ” makes a very strong case for the Bible being more about God seeking a Personal Relationship created man, than man seeking a Personal relationship with their God. Of course both perspectives are correct. Still the evidence of God’s desire to have a Personal relationship with man is overwhelming.

From being created in “the Image of God” [Gen.1:26-27] to calling, asking Adam “where are you?” after the GREAT Original sin.[Gen.3:9] to Saving Noah, calling Abram, Calling Moses, to David and Solomon, the Prophets, Mary [His Mother], the Apostles, John The Baptist, to me and you, God has continually called us “by name” and desired a personal relationship with us.

Indeed this was a primary, yet secondary to the Redemption cause for the Incarnation. God desires and wills that man can know Him. And so it is that we can describe with accuracy that God is “all and only all good infinitely perfect.”

God is perfect wisdom understands that in order for man to “know God” [not simply know about God, which is the OT perspective] it is well that man be able to understand, at least in a primitive sense, something about the nature of their God. We can know from Christ that God exist, that God is good, that God is love, that God all powerful, all knowing and all wise. Certainly that is “only the tip of the iceberg” and we will not fully know God until we meet Him face to face in heaven. [1Cor. 13:12-13]

The bible, truly a gift of and by God has as the Incarnation, the ability to help us discover at least enough about God to have the desired by God and man, personal relationship. [Eph. Ch. 1, Isaiah 43: 7 and 21].

Indeed the first three Commandments demand such a personal relationship, which are best and most likely to be obeyed once we are in Personal relationship with God.

Friend, I hope nothing I said offended you, that is not my intent.

Love and prayers,***

 

[greylorn]

***My dear friend in Christ,

I seldom offer a personal opinion on THE CAF Forum, but shall do so now for the sake of offering a different perspective.

Your opinion, while well thought out seems to ME, to be subjective and a bit secularized.

It overlooks what I THOUGHT would be an oblivious additional and yet primary reason for the Incarnation of God. Namely the desire from God to establish a personal relationship with created man.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen, in his book; “The Life of Christ” makes a very strong case for the Bible being more about God seeking a Personal Relationship created man, than man seeking a Personal relationship with their God. Of course both perspectives are correct. Still the evidence of God’s desire to have a Personal relationship with man is overwhelming.

From being created in “the Image of God” [Gen.1:26-27] to calling, asking Adam “where are you?” after the GREAT Original sin.[Gen.3:9] to Saving Noah, calling Abram, Calling Moses, to David and Solomon, the Prophets, Mary [His Mother], the Apostles, John The Baptist, to me and you, God has continually called us “by name” and desired a personal relationship with us.

Indeed this was a primary, yet secondary to the Redemption cause for the Incarnation. God desires and wills that man can know Him. And so it is that we can describe with accuracy that God is “all and only all good infinitely perfect.”

God is perfect wisdom understands that in order for man to “know God” [not simply know about God, which is the OT perspective] it is well that man be able to understand, at least in a primitive sense, something about the nature of their God. We can know from Christ that God exist, that God is good, that God is love, that God all powerful, all knowing and all wise. Certainly that is “only the tip of the iceberg” and we will not fully know God until we meet Him face to face in heaven. [1Cor. 13:12-13]

The bible, truly a gift of and by God has as the Incarnation, the ability to help us discover at least enough about God to have the desired by God and man, personal relationship. [Eph. Ch. 1, Isaiah 43: 7 and 21].

Indeed the first three Commandments demand such a personal relationship, which are best and most likely to be obeyed once we are in Personal relationship with God.

Friend, I hope nothing I said offended you, that is not my intent.

Love and prayers,***

Don’t worry. After a half century of disagreement, I’ve developed good resistance to offense. And really, you are probably not nearly as practiced at the art of annoying your fellow man as I.

What you’ve done is presented a cogent argument which might make a difference to someone who believed that the Bible is anything other than the words of human beings, carefully translated and filtered so as to justify some components of various religious belief systems. The only reason for believing otherwise is that other men said you should.

I find it more interesting to accept an idea of a Creator derived by referencing the only Bible certain to have been written by that Creator— the physical universe. Before that, I believed exactly as you do now, and expressed my beliefs as openly and as freely as you have. For me to take offense at another man’s honest expression of belief would be hypocritical.

For the record, I find the idea that an omnipotent, omniscient God would want a personal relationship with human beings as likely that Stephen Hawking would like to have a personal relationship with cane toads. Surely God could find something better to do with his time, such as create bigger and faster cane toads. (Heaven forbid that He’d bother to create human beings intelligent enough not to import cane toads.)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What you’ve done is presented a cogent argument which might make a difference to someone who believed that the Bible is anything other than the words of human beings, carefully translated and filtered so as to justify some components of various religious belief systems. The only reason for believing otherwise is that other men said you should.

Consider the passage:

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

This idea, that I can rely on the validity of a belief to the degree that it bears fruit in my life, is credible without any reference to the Scriptures. It is simply pragmatic.

When I believe in the story of the Incarnation, and live in the light of the Incarnation, my life becomes meaningful. It bears fruit. I do not believe because of the testimony of men, in other words, but because of the testimony of God.