Wwydiywg?

[tonyrey]

It’s just a starting point with low hanging fruit. For the N.T. vicarious redemption is what catches my attention and worthy of changing or total replacement.

Why?

There’s a great deal of variance in interpretations of the N.T. though and other things I see worthy of change vary from one denomination to another. Some denominations see the N.T. as reinforcement of maintaining the ways of the O.T., others see it as doing away with them. Some denominations believe hell exists, others don’t. Some believe Jesus is God, some don’t, and so on. NT changes start to become denomination specific.

Disagreement does not imply that they are all mistaken…

 

[Spock]

So God, saying He would love us, is not irrational. But God saying He does love us is irrational because we don’t exist. Except that we believe that God exists outside of time, so he can love us before we exist.

You can believe whatever you want. That does not make it a rational belief. This particular belief simply introduces another irrational concept, namely an “action” without a “before” and and “after”; an action without change. How many irrational and contradictory ideas can be held “true” at the same time?

Seems you are hung up on grammar and miss the greater point.

Grammar, and meanings of words are essential to understanding.

The whole point of this part of the conversation is that God either has no need at all, and then any action on the part of God is irrational, or God’s actions fulfill a need or a desire, and in that case God is not “self-sufficient”. No matter how you try, the catholic (or christian) stance leads to a contradiction.

 

[Wardog]

You can believe whatever you want. That does not make it a rational belief. This particular belief simply introduces another irrational concept, namely an “action” without a “before” and and “after”; an action without change. How many irrational and contradictory ideas can be held “true” at the same time?

Grammar, and meanings of words are essential to understanding.

I disagree, it is quite a rational belief to think that God exists out of time. My belief in God relies on faith, logic and reason. I have no reason to doubt that God exists outside of time and can love me before I am born.
Just because your definition of a rational belief does not coincide with mine, does not make mine wrong and yours right.
My log in name was my callsign while I was in the Navy. Yours is based on a fictional character from a TV series 50 years ago. I think that is irrational; funny, but still irrational. You are free to disagree with my thought, no matter how wrong you are.

 

[TimothyH]

What Would You Do If You Were God?

I would change every channel on your TV to EWTN.

-Tim-

 

[StarFireKK]

Well, I heard so many times that God “needs” nothing, God is totally “self-sufficient” - which contradicts the idea that God has “desires”. A “desire” means the lack of something and the “wishing” to fulfill that “lack”. It is logically contradictory to say that God “lacks nothing” and that God has “desires”. What could someone “desire” if one already has “everything he needs”??? In your interpretation God “lacked” us, who can receive his love, and he wished to be loved by us. That is also a need.

Not exactly self-sufficient - since he needed us to make the “world” complete. What you say is quite logical, but incomplete. To have a need, and to have to power to fulfill that need, is not the same as to have no need at all.

First, I used “desire” very specifically. Desire and need are not the same thing.

A child can desire a toy…he does not need it.
I can desire pancakes for breakfast…I do not need them.
My friend can desire to live in a rural area…he does not need to do so.

A child needs things to do, I need good and my friend needs shelter but just because we want something different than what we have doesn’t mean we will be harmed by not having it.

But if you take away my food, the child’s activities, and my friend’s shelter we would all start having very negative consequences very quickly.

So God and still desire to have creatures to share his love without needing them.

Furthermore, I have a bit of a bone to pick on how you define “self-sufficient.” Most would agree a man living off his labors and his own land (growing and hunting his own food) is self-sufficient. The man cannot will the seeds he grows or the dirt he plants them in. Nor can he create a whitetail buck to hunt. But God…who actually can will things into existence is not self-sufficient?

 

[StarFireKK]

Sorry, that sentence in my prior post was : God can still desire creatures to love without needing them.

My computer locked and I couldn’t edit. Must be spending too much time on CAF.

 

[someguy14]

What Would You Do If You Were God? This question comes up periodically. Of course the answer is too simple: “NOTHING”. From the pinnacle all roads lead downhill. A perfection cannot be improved upon, no matter what is added to it or taken from it. The only logical thing would be to do nothing.

So you admit that satan rebelling was useless.

 

[Spock]

So you admit that satan rebelling was useless.

Useless? I think he made it all right. No boring playing on harps, no singing hymns 24 hours a day… but a highly versatile and quite successful job of snatching “souls” from God, and causing God a lot of “grief and pain” in the process.

Still, God must “value” satan and his activities very highly - otherwise he would have slapped him down a long time ago. After all God needed satan to “outsource” the dirty work to him. It is obviously satan who drags all the sinners into hell. According to the story of Job, they even had some nice conversation and a “friendly” bet, in which Job was just a pawn. (So much for the inherent dignity of a human being, to be treated like a piece on the chessboard. Oops, sorry, I keep forgetting that God can do whatever he wants to do and still “deserves” only praise and not crticism. My bad, I suppose.)

 

[Spock]

First, I used “desire” very specifically. Desire and need are not the same thing.

A child can desire a toy…he does not need it.
I can desire pancakes for breakfast…I do not need them.
My friend can desire to live in a rural area…he does not need to do so.

A child needs things to do, I need good and my friend needs shelter but just because we want something different than what we have doesn’t mean we will be harmed by not having it.

But if you take away my food, the child’s activities, and my friend’s shelter we would all start having very negative consequences very quickly.

So God and still desire to have creatures to share his love without needing them.

You confuse physical need with psychological need. Every desire comes from a “need”. A child “desires” to be loved, but he does not “need” it (if we use your definition of “need”). In the real definition of “need” is anything that is “not there”, but what would fulfill something for the person who desires it.

Furthermore, I have a bit of a bone to pick on how you define “self-sufficient.” Most would agree a man living off his labors and his own land (growing and hunting his own food) is self-sufficient. The man cannot will the seeds he grows or the dirt he plants them in. Nor can he create a whitetail buck to hunt. But God…who actually can will things into existence is not self-sufficient?

Now we disagree of “self-sufficient”, too. The christian idea is that God is perfect, God does not “need” anything (in the full meaning of “need”). It does not allow for having a “need” and then the ability to fulfill that need.

There is a serious need for an English-Catholic dictionary. The simplest words in Catho-speak can mean something else than the usual, accepted meaning in plain English. Just like there is a need for a “Catholic annotated Bible” which would p(name removed by moderator)oint which verses must be understood in a literal fashion, and which ones are to be taken allegorically. (It would be nice to tell us just how those allegorical verses are to be understood, but that might be beyond the capabilities of the church… but to collect the literally correct verses should not be such a daunting task that even during 2000 years it was impossible to complete.)

 

[E.E.N.S]

Ah, I get it,
What would I do if I were God?

Ban Spock from the forums.
Now that would be perfect.

I would turn Spock into a fluffy, pink bunny.

 

[Spock]

I would change every channel on your TV to EWTN.

Useless. I do not watch TV.

I would turn Spock into a fluffy, pink bunny.

The outpouring of “love” is just touching…

 

[Spock]

I disagree, it is quite a rational belief to think that God exists out of time.

Outside OUR time… yes. Outside time, no. Any action (and God is assumed to be active), “cuts” existence into a “before” and an “after”, therefore leads to the existence of time. If you deny that then you are irrational.

I have no reason to doubt that God exists outside of time and can love me before I am born.

If you would be reasonable, you would deny (not just doubt) it. It seems that you dropped your argument that you “loved” your children before they existed. It is totally illogical and irrational to “love” something or someone, who does not exist yet. Amazing that you cannot see that.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Outside OUR time… yes. Outside time, no. Any action (and God is assumed to be active), “cuts” existence into a “before” and an “after”, therefore leads to the existence of time. If you deny that then you are irrational.

I disagree with this. I think you’re subjecting God to time, and hence you’re arriving at a faulty conclusion from circular logic. If God is outside time, then there is no “before” and “after”, it simply is what it is. As humans, it’s difficult for us to comprehend a world without time since that’s all we’ve ever been accustomed to. This also explains why mathematicians have historically debated fiercely over whether “infinity” and “zero” are actual numbers rather than concepts; the human brain isn’t very capable at acknowledging eternity and virtual nothingness.

If you would be reasonable, you would deny (not just doubt) it. It seems that you dropped your argument that you “loved” your children before they existed. It is totally illogical and irrational to “love” something or someone, who does not exist yet. Amazing that you cannot see that.

What satisfied me during my time as a Catholic was that you can consider humans who do not yet exist as “projects to be fulfilled”. Every human has a purpose, but they can’t achieve that purpose until they exist. So it’s quite possible for God to love humans even before they exist, in the same way as a manager is eager for his project to be fulfilled, for Scripture says: “"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). This is also one reason among many that abortion is considered wrong. For instance, Steve Jobs (RIP) was given away to be adopted by his parents without them knowing the great things he would perform later on in his life. Where would the world be if his parents had him aborted?

 

[Spock]

I disagree with this. I think you’re subjecting God to time, and hence you’re arriving at a faulty conclusion from circular logic. If God is outside time, then there is no “before” and “after”, it simply is what it is.

An action equals a change. An action without a change cannot be distinguished from inaction. Any change involves a “before” and an “after” - hence time.

 

[You]

An action equals a change. An action without a change cannot be distinguished from inaction. Any change involves a “before” and an “after” - hence time.

An action within a material system equals time. No material, no time. According to human definitions of time. I don’t know what definition they use on planet Vulcan, the same, I suspect.

 

[StarFireKK]

You confuse physical need with psychological need. Every desire comes from a “need”. A child “desires” to be loved, but he does not “need” it (if we use your definition of “need”). In the real definition of “need” is anything that is “not there”, but what would fulfill something for the person who desires it.

You are missing my point. Even if we use a psychological desire. I desire to be loved by x even though I am loved by y. Does that mean I need x’s love, that I can’t possible have the need to be loved filled by y’s love?

Sounds like a philosophical twist of “But baby! I’ll just die if we don’t!” I heard that a lot in high school…didn’t buy it then, don’t buy it now.

Now we disagree of “self-sufficient”, too. The christian idea is that God is perfect, God does not “need” anything (in the full meaning of “need”). It does not allow for having a “need” and then the ability to fulfill that need.

There is a serious need for an English-Catholic dictionary. The simplest words in Catho-speak can mean something else than the usual, accepted meaning in plain English. Just like there is a need for a “Catholic annotated Bible” which would p(name removed by moderator)oint which verses must be understood in a literal fashion, and which ones are to be taken allegorically. (It would be nice to tell us just how those allegorical verses are to be understood, but that might be beyond the capabilities of the church… but to collect the literally correct verses should not be such a daunting task that even during 2000 years it was impossible to complete.)

Hold on- if we use your definition of “self-sufficient” the phrase becomes meaningless. No living thing can sustain itself without outside nourishment. Last I check, none of us can create our own food.

But we use “self-sufficient” all the time. We often use in to describe people. So there is no way it can mean what you are suggesting it means. Humans cannot sustain their lives without outside resources. God can!

Accusing Catholics of twisting words around is a bit rich when I am using the “self-sufficient” in the commonly accepted way.

 

[StarFireKK]

Now that I think about it, claiming that desire is nothing but a “psychological need” and that “needs must be met to have a good/fulfilling/etc life” is a rationalization of a hedonist.

 

[Wardog]

Outside OUR time… yes. Outside time, no. Any action (and God is assumed to be active), “cuts” existence into a “before” and an “after”, therefore leads to the existence of time. If you deny that then you are irrational.

If you would be reasonable, you would deny (not just doubt) it. It seems that you dropped your argument that you “loved” your children before they existed. It is totally illogical and irrational to “love” something or someone, who does not exist yet. Amazing that you cannot see that.

"Outside our time: yes. Outside time, no. Ok, you got me. I always thought of time as a human construct, so not sure why you claim the difference.
Again, you say I must be irrational. Again I disagree. You can disagree with me, but have no basis to call me irrational just because there is a concept beyond linear time that you do not comprehend.
What is irrational is your calling your self Spock makes you think you are the arbiter of what is logical and rational. After reading your posts, it is clear that anyone who disagrees with you is either illogical or irrational, or both. This is childish thinking at best…

 

[samiam1611]

I think the state of this world puts serious doubt on the claim that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent. However, I would not call the state of this world a demonstration that God is illogical, nor would I call people who believe that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent illogical for believing that God is not illogical. I just think they’re wrong.

The CCC says:

IV. HOW CAN WE SPEAK ABOUT GOD?

39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.

40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.

41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, “for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator”.

42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God–“the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable”–with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.

43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that “between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude”; and that “concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him.”

The less we say about God, the less we try to use our puny language skills, the more logical and rational we are being though. I would say God is a mystery, and that’s that. Incomprensible, inexpressible, ungraspable.
The more words we use to describe God, the more we (and by we, I mean you guys, theists) are just expressing [y]our wishful thoughts, [y]our desire to understand the world, and you demonstrate how practically everything you think about God is based on faith and revelation, not reason or reality.

To me, the rationality of an individual depends on how much they are willing to say they understand God. The more they say, the less rational they are being. So far the people on this thread have not said anything terribly irrational IMO. I think Starfire has done an adequate job explaining the whole need/desire thing, and Wardog has adequately expained the love thing. I don’t actually agree with them, but I think they have expressed their beliefs in an acceptably logical way.

 

[Spock]

"Outside our time: yes. Outside time, no. Ok, you got me. I always thought of time as a human construct, so not sure why you claim the difference.

There is a huge difference. Consider a movie, and yourself as the spectator of the movie. Within the movie there are events, and the time-flow of the events in the movie. We are outside of that movie. In the movie there can be flashbacks, showing the characters sometimes younger, sometime older. The “time” in the movie is totally seprate from our time, and our our time is totally separate fro the movie’s time. But, there is an important fact to consider: we can only be aware of those parts of the movie, which already have been shown. Even though we are “outside” of the movie’s time, we cannot know what “will” happen in the movie, until that part rolls around.

Obviously, the analogy is not 100% correct. The movie has a director, it has been shot in the past. The actors have no freedom any more, their actions have been captured on the movie. The spectator, however - even if outside of the time of the movie - cannot know what “will” happen in the movie’s “future”.

Again, you say I must be irrational. Again I disagree. You can disagree with me, but have no basis to call me irrational just because there is a concept beyond linear time that you do not comprehend.

I am not talking about any kind of specific time: I am talking about the metaphysical concept of change. A change logically involves a difference, and thus involves a “before” and an “after”. A change is not a change if there is no difference. If there is no difference, it would be crazy to talk about a “change”. Again, anyone who denies that is irrational - and that has nothing to do with my screen-name.

1. A change without a difference is not a change.
2. A difference without a “before the change” and “after the change” is not a difference.
3. A “before” and an “after” presumes a time.

And I am not interested in explaining it again. If you cannot comprehend it, it is your problem from now on.