Why does God have to follow Reason?

  • Thread starter Thread starter seeker_of_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
seeker_of_God said:
Well, I don’t know what to tell you, but movement has been the philosophical word for it for much of the philosophical tradition. Movement does not necessarily mean literal movement, but it does not mean that literal movement is or is not a part of it.

Here’s a good example. If you tell me something I did not previously know, my intellect has been moved (not physically) to grasp that new knowledge

But the example doesn’t matter. The point is that all movement requires a mover. I’m not sure why you are intentionally trying to disprove this…
Click to expand...
For one thing the Lord God of Israel is not a mover in that things move because He does. The Lord God does not move, in the sense you are insisting on. God reveals and creation responds, then God judges the response.
God reveals His Word that is of Him, in His Presence and creation responds:
Gen:1:3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Now God judges the response to His Word:
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
I honestly believe there is an OT verse speaking of the shadow never moves at the throne of God but I can’t find it right now, sure enough, I will find it later. But again, it is not God’s nature to move and scripture describes Him as not moving and not movable:

Jms:1:17: Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Therefore in order for creation to respond, movement is not required, and movement doesn’t really require a mover, when it comes to the start of creation, but power and Spirit that is of God. When men seek to heal another it take the hands of the doctor to move this that and the other, and hope it heals, but when the many came to Jesus to be healed creation responded to His Word in His Presence. Requiered movement is man’s view and way, and revelation is the Lord God’s Way.

No matter how renown a theologian maybe, scripture supercedes anything man derives in man’s own view.

Therefore mover, or first mover is incorrect in the description and or truth of God as “Creator and Judge” (Elohim). And since that is so, then wouldn’t it be wise to find the correct way to bring the Truth of God into the area of philosophy?
 
D_Martin said:
For one thing the Lord God of Israel is not a mover in that things move because He does. The Lord God does not move, in the sense you are insisting on. God reveals and creation responds, then God judges the response.
God reveals His Word that is of Him, in His Presence and creation responds:
Gen:1:3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Now God judges the response to His Word:
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
I honestly believe there is an OT verse speaking of the shadow never moves at the throne of God but I can’t find it right now, sure enough, I will find it later. But again, it is not God’s nature to move and scripture describes Him as not moving and not movable:

Jms:1:17: Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
No matter how renown a theologian maybe, scripture supercedes anything man derives in man’s own view.

Therefore mover, or first mover is incorrect in the description and or truth of God as “Creator and Judge” (Elohim). And since that is so, then wouldn’t it be wise to find the correct way to bring the Truth of God into the area of philosophy?
Click to expand...
Well, I’m sorry again, but you are simply incorrect in your judgment. God is a mover, and the First Mover.

I’m not saying that God moves within Himself. If you are listening to what I’m saying, I’m saying He is eternal and completely actualized. But He does move things within creation. Without Him as the First Mover, creation would not exist.

Quite simply, you are attacking a philosophical concept that you clearly do not understand or grasp, and so you are attacking something that I never said.

This is the error in Protestantism. All things reduce to the Bible, and not even philosophy is accepted, nor science if it appears to contradict Scripture. Philosophy cannot be untrue, because it is natural reason. Any religion that opposes it is fallacious by its very nature.

You may like to read this article: What is Philosophy?
 
seeker_of_God said:
Well, I’m sorry again, but you are simply incorrect in your judgment. God is a mover, and the First Mover.

I’m not saying that God moves within Himself. If you are listening to what I’m saying, I’m saying He is eternal and completely actualized. But He does move things within creation. Without Him as the First Mover, creation would not exist.

Quite simply, you are attacking a philosophical concept that you clearly do not understand or grasp, and so you are attacking something that I never said.

This is the error in Protestantism. All things reduce to the Bible, and not even philosophy is accepted, nor science if it appears to contradict Scripture. Philosophy cannot be untrue, because it is natural reason. Any religion that opposes it is fallacious by its very nature.

You may like to read this article: What is Philosophy?
Click to expand...
Well if one sees that philosophy is superior to scripture then what is it that one is trying to justify? Could it be one own view? And in the Presence of God what is justified other then the Presence of God, what thought is superior to God’s thought?

Anyways nice talking to you, I’m from the Burgh, and lived in Somerset a few year’s, Go Steelers
 
D_Martin said:
Well if one sees that philosophy is superior to scripture then what is it that one is trying to justify? Could it be one own view? And in the Presence of God what is justified other then the Presence of God, what thought is superior to God’s thought?

Anyways nice talking to you, I’m from the Burgh, and lived in Somerset a few year’s, Go Steelers
Click to expand...
God’s thought is reason. As is being discussed in this thread, God is ultimately and infinitely reasonable, because He is intellect. Therefore, philosophy is part of His very nature, or rather, the pursuit of philosophy delves into His very nature.

Ah, you’re only an hour and a half or so away from me. 🙂
 
seeker_of_God said:
God’s thought is reason. As is being discussed in this thread, God is ultimately and infinitely reasonable, because He is intellect. Therefore, philosophy is part of His very nature, or rather, the pursuit of philosophy delves into His very nature.

Ah, you’re only an hour and a half or so away from me. 🙂
Click to expand...
I understand you see the use of philosophy that way, but if what is philosophized or an “ism”, is contrary to scripture in respect to the things of God, then its incorrect, simple as that no different then a sermon that is about the things of God and is contrary to scripture then it would have to be incorrect also, right? I have spent some time off and on, on philosophy web sites believe me, on the subject of God its always about their view of who or what God is or what they think He ought to be.

An atheist doesn’t believe there is a God, and needless to say they don’t know the Lord God, and seek to justify what they have chosen to believe and trust to be true. Theists (or deists) believe there is a God, but don’t know God, and seek to justify their own view of God or what they believe God ought to be, to be the God they would accept, or believe in or trust. Or maybe better said God in the likeness of the theist. What a priest is supposed to be, is one who knows and walks with the Lord his God, and is justified by his God’s Presence with him because the priest believes and trusts the Living God.

when it comes to philosophy in respect to things that are of man, such as arts, and sciences and the like, then whatever, but the things of God, the Lord God of Israel, which is what we are talking about here, then it must not be contrary to scripture, or its incorrect.

Oh yea just to be clear, He is Spirit, not intellect, though He is the souce of what is correct to think, which can only be the Truth.
Don’t live in PA anymore, used to work for the Turnpike, live in Arizona out in the desert now, different very different here.
 
D_Martin said:
I understand you see the use of philosophy that way, but if what is philosophized or an “ism”, is contrary to scripture in respect to the things of God, then its incorrect, simple as that no different then a sermon that is about the things of God and is contrary to scripture then it would have to be incorrect also, right? I have spent some time off and on, on philosophy web sites believe me, on the subject of God its always about their view of who or what God is or what they think He ought to be.

An atheist doesn’t believe there is a God, and needless to say they don’t know the Lord God, and seek to justify what they have chosen to believe and trust to be true. Theists (or deists) believe there is a God, but don’t know God, and seek to justify their own view of God or what they believe God ought to be, to be the God they would accept, or believe in or trust. What a priest is supposed to be, is one who knows and walks with the Lord his God, and is justified by his God’s Presence with him because the priest believes and trusts the Living God.

when it comes to philosophy in respect to things that are of man, such as arts, and sciences and the like, then whatever, but the things of God, the Lord God of Israel, which is what we are talking about here, then it must not be contrary to scripture, or its incorrect.

Oh yea just to be clear, He is Spirit, not intellect, though He is the souce of what is correct to think, which can only be the Truth.
Click to expand...
Something may only appear to be against Scripture. If a philosophy is a true philosophy, then nothing may go against it without being rendered preposterous. If there is a scripture in the world (not speaking onl of the Bible) that went against the principles of philosophy, then quite simply that scripture would be useless and false. Now, the Bible, being divinely inspired, is completely in alignment with philosophical principles, and in any way we believe it to be otherwise, we are wrong.

As God is an infinite being, there are certain things that are necessary to such a being. As such, necessary is that such a being’s essence is being itself, and that such a being has no parts, and that such a being has no change. So, insofar as someone says that God has change, or that God has emotion, or that God contains or possesses things within Himself and thereby is not completely simple, such a person is incorrect.

God has a perfect intellect, and its procession is the Son, the Word, Logos, Christ. See that article I linked to above, near the end. God has nothing that is not His essence, and so His intellect is His substance as well. Yes, of course, God is spirit, but God is also love, and justice, and mercy, and goodness, and intellect by which the Word proceeds and is generated. God’s utter simplicity is necessary, and could not be otherwise.

You seem to have a distrust of philosophy itself, but it is the basis of religion. No religion can make any sense without a grounding in philosophy. Indeed most religious can be disproven on philosophical grounds.

It does not mean that every philosophical conclusion is inerrant, for our intellect can be quite limited sometimes, and we can make mistakes. But there are certain things that are certain, definite philosophical truths that cannot be contradicted.
 
seeker_of_God said:
You seem to have a distrust of philosophy itself, but it is the basis of religion. No religion can make any sense without a grounding in philosophy. Indeed most religious can be disproven on philosophical grounds.

It does not mean that every philosophical conclusion is inerrant, for our intellect can be quite limited sometimes, and we can make mistakes. But there are certain things that are certain, definite philosophical truths that cannot be contradicted.
Click to expand...
Distrust of philosophy no, distrust in the users thereof yea, I know what I see. No different then distrust of those who are given charge of government, but that doesn’t mean I distrust the institution of government which is ordained by God. As far as religion, sorry that’s a assumption or a presumption at the least, on your part, religion is last thing I am interested in. Kingdom of God yes, religion na, na na na. In many cases, religion has dual meaning religion as in practices in acts of worship of deities, and justifications for such acts or religion can be a system of belief. Deceiving at best. System of belief can be any system especially government. Nations like USA have the system of belief they live and stand by and enforce called the Constitution of the United States for example.

Don’t presume that those who would challenge your philosophical views, are against what you are trying to do. For example, a few minutes ago I just watched on TV a quarter back throw an interception and chase the defender 30 or 40 yards and then make a feeble the QB could have stood still and accomplished the same thing. If you going to run the race, you might as well be ready to win.
 
seeker of God

needed to correct the previous posting, but was to late.

Don’t presume that those who would challenge your philosophical views, are against what you are trying to do. For example, A few minutes ago I just watched on TV a quarter back throw an interception and then chase the defender 30 or 40 yards and then make a feeble wimpy attempt to tackle the defender before the defender went into the end zone. Now the quarter back could have stood still and accomplished the same thing. If you going to run the race, you might as well be ready to win.
 
D_Martin said:
Distrust of philosophy no, distrust in the users thereof yea, I know what I see. No different then distrust of those who are given charge of government, but that doesn’t mean I distrust the institution of government which is ordained by God. As far as religion, sorry that’s a assumption or a presumption at the least, on your part, religion is last thing I am interested in. Kingdom of God yes, religion na, na na na. In many cases, religion has dual meaning religion as in practices in acts of worship of deities, and justifications for such acts or religion can be a system of belief. Deceiving at best. System of belief can be any system especially government. Nations like USA have the system of belief they live and stand by and enforce called the Constitution of the United States for example.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you are saying. Are you saying that your term, the “Kingdom of God,” is not a religion? It is a religion. YOu have faith, and therefore it is a religion. You cannot say that Christianity is not a religion.

Either way, whatever you want to call it, its grounding is in philosophy. What do you say I am presuming?

If you believe otherwise, then please describe in what ways your religion … or whatever you want to call it … opposes any of the first laws of metaphysics?

You’ve not made very much sense in this thread. Please give me something substantive to work with. What are you disagreeing with?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top