 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject) | Forum Quick Jump
|
 |  GregBoyd Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 1818 | Posted 8/26/2004 1:41 PM (GMT -6) |   | In some circles this is called "the mystery card." In the game of theological poker, you deal it whenever you're in a tough spot.
More seriously, there is a long history of the Church undermining people's sense of reason and intuition. If you can get people to distrust THEIR OWN reason and intuition, you can then make them dependent on YOU if they believe YOU have some special access to spiritual truths. Religion then becomes a matter of obeying authority rather than wrestling with issues with integrity.
If you can't trust what you think "love" is, for example, well then you just might have to believe ME when I tell you God is perfectly "loving" though he predestines the majority of people to go to hell. And since you're reasoning is faulty, listen to me when I tell you that you have no right to object that this makes God guilty of evil and that its the fault of the damned for being as they were predestined to be. And if you don't see it my way -- why, that just proves you must not be one of the elect.
When eternal bliss or torment is leveraged on an authority, you've got one powerful authority. For all authortarian tactics are predicated on the fear of the subjects.
Greg "The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
  |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 8/26/2004 3:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | For the record, Gregory Naz. did not at all like "negation." But also recognized that there are limits in what is knowable by us.
quote: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-43.htm#TopOfPage
Gregory Nazianzen Oration XXVIII. The Second Theological Oration.
IX. And thus we see that God is not a body. For no inspired teacher has yet asserted or admitted such a notion, nor has the sentence of our own Court allowed it. Nothing then remains but to conceive of Him as incorporeal. But this term Incorporeal, though granted, does not yet set before us-or contain within itself His Essence, any more than Unbegotten, or Unoriginate, or Unchanging, or Incorruptible, or any other predicate which is used concerning God or in reference to Him. For what effect is produced upon His Being or Substance31 by His having no beginning, and being incapable of change or limitation? Nay, the whole question of His Being is still left for the further consideration and exposition of him who truly has the mind of God and is advanced in contemplation. For just as to say "It is a body," or "It was begotten," is not sufficient to present clearly to the mind the various objects of which these predicates are used, but you must also express the subject of which you use them, if you would present the object of your thought clearly and adequately (for every one of these predicates, corporeal, begotten, mortal, may be used of a man, or a cow, or a horse). Just so he who is eagerly pursuing the nature of the Self-existent will not stop at saying what He is not, but must go on beyond what He is not, and say what He is; inasmuch as it is easier to take in some single point than to go on disowning point after point in endless detail, in order, both by the elimination of negatives and the assertion of positives to arrive at a comprehension of this subject.
But a man who states what God is not without going on to say what He is, acts much in the same way as one would who when asked how many twice five make, should answer, "Not two, nor three, nor four, nor five, nor twenty, nor thirty, nor in short any number below ten, nor any multiple of ten;" but would not answer "ten," nor settle the mind of his questioner upon the firm ground of the answer. For it is much easier, and more concise to shew what a thing is not from what it is, than to demonstrate what it is by stripping it of what it is not.And this surely is evident to every one.
X. Now since we have ascertained that God is incorporeal, let us proceed a little further with our examination. Is He Nowhere or Somewhere. For if He is Nowhere,32 then some person of a very inquiring turn of mind might ask, How is it then that He can even exist? For if the non-existent is nowhere, then that which is nowhere is also perhaps non-existent. But if He is Somewhere, He must be either in the Universe, or above the Universe. And if He is in the Universe, then He must be either in some part or in the whole. If in some part, then He will be circumscribed by that part which is less than Himself; but if everywhere, then by one which is further and greater-I mean the Universal, which contains the Particular; if the Universe is to be contained by the Universe, and no place is to be free from circumscription. This follows if He is contained in the Universe. And besides, where was He before the Universe was created, for this is a point of no little difficulty. But if He is above the Universe, is there nothing to distinguish this from the Universe, and where is this above situated? And how could this Transcendence and that which is transcended be distinguished in thought, if there is not a limit to divide and define them? Is it not necessary that there shall be some mean to mark off the Universe from that which is above the Universe? And what could this be but Place, which we have already rejected? For I have not yet brought forward the point that God would be altogether circumscript, if He were even comprehensible in thought: for comprehension is one form of circumscription.
| | Back to Top | | |
  | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:28 AM (GMT -6) There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads. In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3 dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|