quote:

---

Great post Brett.
I think when we respond to God's call the smoke clears in amazing ways.

---

quote:

---

Empiress, I would love to get your perspective on this considering your discussion on REASON in that other thread.

---

quote:

---

I suggest that God LIKES to be obscure! He LIKES to hide Himself from the wise! He LIKES to be ardently sought out and NOT be obvious. He LIKES to place Himself in the the most ODD places and consider THAT revealing himself.

---

quote:

---

It's not just a manner of God "liking it," but it IS the most EFFECTIVE method for making us THINK and discover truth.

Jesus speaks to us in "intentionally enigmatic" ways in order to communicate MORE information than he could by being direct.

We see this in artwork and poetry, where a single painting "communicates a thousand words" and communicates it more deeply and qualitatively. Direct words tend to hit the intellect and STOP, whereas enigmatic, poetic, or allegorical statements tend to BYPASS reason and hit the heart in a more immediate way.

---

quote:

---

I don't think God CAN'T do anything else. I do think God's obscurity is CHOSEN for his own purposes. But I don't think those purposes are arbitrary or capricious. I think those purposes have meaning. Part of the meaning is what Miss E has said. Part of the meaning is what I have said. Part of the meaning is completely unknowable. But because it is unknowable to us doesn't mean that it is arbitrary. The Bible to my mind does not paint a picture of a capricious God, even if I cannot explain every action he has taken.

---

Haven't left yet, so...I have time for a brief one. Check it out, Semeia. What you are ultimately saying is that God's choice is based upon certain PRINCIPLES...principles that grant this "meaning" of which you speak. Don't you see that THIS forms the "can't/won't" idea? You are saying that God's choices are NOT conditioned PRIMARILY by His wishes (what you are calling "arbitrary", but they are PRIMARILY conditioned by principles that go with the aspect of "goodness" Don't you see this? Why is it so hard to believe that God does things JUST because he wants to? NOT for some greater good for humanity or existence. NOT to adhere to some prinicple. But just because God WANTS to. Is that really so hard? Think about it, yo. You are not even willing to grant that God can do ANYTHING "arbitrarily" or that's the way that it seems.

This will show me. Are you willing to say the following?

At least ONE POSSIBLE ACT of God's mysterious kind may be done EXPRESSLY BASED on God's whim. (NOT any principle, NOT any "greater good", etc) In other words, God CAN act in an arbitrary manner.

AGREE or DISAGREE.

quote:

---

I believe that God is a hidden God because God's nature is perfect holiness. Humans can only "taste" a tiny amount of holiness at a time.

---

Okay, but God's ultimate purpose is for us to know him and his Truth, right? God is not trying to play "keep-away." I realize that being in his actual presence would be terrifying for us, but what about just plain old Truth? Just give us all the information, and then let us make a decision. [I should note here that as a Universalist, God's obscurity is likely not so problematic for you. Since, under your position, we will all be saved regardless of our understanding or actualizing of Truth, the clarity of God's revelation doesn't ultimately matter.]

Miss E continues:

quote:

---

Third, (as you alluded) I don't believe God can be approached through reason. God is actively forcing us to drop such rational attempts by being "inaccessible" to reason. We ought to approach God with our hearts and spirits: more like the way we approach beauty, love, poetry, or art.

---

I like this much more, particularly after you fleshed it out further in your later post:

quote:

---

it IS the most EFFECTIVE method for making us THINK and discover truth.

Jesus speaks to us in "intentionally enigmatic" ways in order to communicate MORE information than he could by being direct.

We see this in artwork and poetry, where a single painting "communicates a thousand words" and communicates it more deeply and qualitatively. Direct words tend to hit the intellect and STOP, whereas enigmatic, poetic, or allegorical statements tend to BYPASS reason and hit the heart in a more immediate way.

---

I think this has a lot to do with the mystery. Jesus constantly speaking in parables makes sense this way. Nicely said, Miss E (I like that name, too, by the way.).

Now on to the Mephmeister.

Mephi says (unsurprisingly):

quote:

---

So, here's my take in a nutshell? Why is God not more obvious?

BECAUSE HE FRIGGIN DOESN'T WANT TO BE! LOL

---

Well, your position on omnibenevolence colors everything, doesn't it? But, frankly, Mephi, if you believe that God loves each one of us, and wants each one of us to have a relationship with him, then you cannot also believe that he keeps us from the Truth that will give us that relationship "BECAUSE HE FRIGGIN WANTS TO." [I did appreciate those scripture passages, though. I'm takin' those down.]



Semeia adds:

quote:

---

God's infinite mercy is in the mystery, and any attempt to quantify it alters it, as surely as "seeing" the electron collapses the wave into a particle. "Not knowing" seems to be an essential ingredient of love, which in our knowledge of good and evil we cannot comprehend, we fight against it, until in our futility we find ourselves at the foot of the cross, where the wisdom of the world is snuffed out, and in our utter blindness God says, "Let there be light."

. . .And of course if in your seeing you suddenly think that you can see, God must find a way to blind you again. Jesus came so that those who could see may become blind.

---

All right, I was with you on the whole humility thing, but then you started taking me in circles. You're saying that we must ultimately understand that we are blind, and then God will give us the light, but if we try to open our eyes, he's going to blind us again. And so on. I agree with Meph that you are forcing your anti-judgment enthusiasm into the answer here. And I don't mean to say that Jesus wasn't anti-judgment, or that we shouldn't be. But you seem to give it excessive significance:

quote:

---

It is not our sin we have to overcome to enter. It is our judgment of each other, ourselves, and God.

---

Judging others IS a sin. One of many that have to be overcome (through Christ) to enter the kingdom of God.

If all you're saying is what Mephi thought you were saying ("The reason why God is often so obscure is to basically show that what we THINK we know is pretty much nothing...and he does this to get us to relinquish our arrogance about what we THINK we know and rely humbly on God more."), then I am with you.

still unsure:

quote:

---

He must not see nothing at all, nor must he see enough to think that he possesses God, but he must see enough to know that he has lost him. For, to know that one has lost something one must see and not see: such precisely is the state of nature.

---

Very cool quote.

So far, I think I am most persuaded by the idea that Truth conveyed indirectly is more effective.

Thanks for the input, kemosabes.

*still mulling it all over*

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

quote:

---

It's not just a manner of God "liking it," but it IS the most EFFECTIVE method for making us THINK and discover truth.

Jesus speaks to us in "intentionally enigmatic" ways in order to communicate MORE information than he could by being direct.

We see this in artwork and poetry, where a single painting "communicates a thousand words" and communicates it more deeply and qualitatively. Direct words tend to hit the intellect and STOP, whereas enigmatic, poetic, or allegorical statements tend to BYPASS reason and hit the heart in a more immediate way.

This has long been understood in Zen. In Zen, masters communicate with their students through "koans"....those bizarre statements westerners have come to associate with Zen (like: "What's the sound of one hand clapping"?). The concept behind these statements is that it causes the student to dwell on the statement and process it NON-RATIONALLY and thus opens up truths within their own hearts that they wouldn't have previously encountered!

It is not so much that God WON'T be known by the wise, but that God CAN'T be known by the wise because we must approach God like a child INTUITIVELY. This IS NECESSARY.

We see in Jesus the same presupposition that Zen Buddhists have: it presupposes that all the truth we NEED to KNOW is already within us, but has been obscured. The typical Modern-Western approach though is to "educate" people and give "new information" (ie sermons and seminary). But you CAN'T communicate the deepest spiritual truths through discourse! They have to be EXPERIENCED!!

This is not merely about God's "taste" or about God "getting off on it." I'm arguing this is the BEST way for people to learn and understand, if not the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE.

---

What I'm getting from this is:

1) The benefits of using parabolic communication of truth (which is WHY Jesus did it)
2) Humility and childlike intuitive behavior is how one much approach God.

Let it be said that I understand the effectiveness of parables. Very well. This type of stuff was VERY obvious in certain areas. And I can also see God choosing to do this. But this is missing my point. I'm saying that God COULD have gotten some of his points across by being LESS parabolic and ambiguous IF HE WANTED TO. To deny this is to overlook that fact that God directly SPOKE to people in the past. Moses. Jacob. Samuel. The PROPHETS, for crying out loud. Hey, how about PAUL. I am not denying the obvious power of using parables. But what YOU are saying, Miss E, is that it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for God to use the type AND LEVEL of parabolic discourse that He did. This seems patently wrong to me. God CHOSE to act this way. Period. Again, it comes between CHOICE and NECESSITY...as it always has.

[Quick note to BJS: Do you see what I'm saying? I was NOT denying that God could have found parables more suitable to his purposes, whatever they were. Not at all. What I'm denying is that his decision to do so were TOTALLY based on necessity. See what Miss E was saying?]

I affirm that the primacy is on God's CHOICE.

_____________________________________


Semeia said

quote:

---

So is God possibly entertained in the same way? Does he ever tickle our nose with a feather? Does he ever rub our belly when what we really wanted was to be rubbed behind the ears? I certainly think that is possible. One reason I think that is because of the sheer variety of totally bizarre creatures that live in the world. If you look at what swims in the dark at the bottom of the ocean, or the outrageously audaciously grotesque insects (have you ever seen an enlarged picture of a dust mite? What sort of Creator dreams that up? It’s a madhouse!), it seems to me that the Creator who dreamed it all up wasn’t driven purely by NECESSITY. There is a joy, a curiosity, an inventiveness throughout Creation, with whole worlds of frivolous detail. Who would waste so much energy on the spectacular variety of flowers in the world? Surely not a utilitarian Creator, bound by NECESSITY?

So I agree, God is capable of whimsy.

But to go back to my cats for a moment: if they were hungry, or scared, or cold, or sick, or being chased by a dog or a fox, I wouldn’t respond with whimsy. I love my cats, and with love there is a time for whimsy and a time to get serious. I would never say, Oh, I know my cat is being chased by a dog, but I think I’ll just sit back and see what happens. Let’s see if the dog kills the cat. Let’s just for the heck of it let it play out and see who lives and who dies. I would never do that.

---

What I'm hearing is that God IS INDEED able to have whimsy, but only with (as YOU conceive it) frivolous things. Rubbin' tummies and stuff. But when it comes to more important stuff, nope. WhoWEE. There's a big problem there, sugar. Remember that, given the assumptions of OV, we don't really know WHAT is frivolous and what isn't. Something that God may think AT THE TIME is frivolous with which he exercises whimsy, may end up being something quite important later. See, it seems to me that you really are humanizing God here...by way of the "God doesn't sweat the small stuff" idea. Sure, God can exhibit whimsy with "small things" that don't matter that much or that won't have that much potential for evil. Otherwise he doesn't. Wow. Does anyone ELSE see a problem with this?


Semeia also said:

quote:

---

Now you can rightly say that people die every day and God doesn’t intervene. True. But that doesn’t mean that he’s doing it out of some arbitrary, "let’s just see if this guy manages to shake this baby to death today" whimsy. I don’t believe it. I could not worship a God like that. I would sooner go to hell.

---

Hey, it's your life. Live it...and deal with any consequences that follow.


_____________________________________

BJS

quote:

---

Well, your position on omnibenevolence colors everything, doesn't it? But, frankly, Mephi, if you believe that God loves each one of us, and wants each one of us to have a relationship with him, then you cannot also believe that he keeps us from the Truth that will give us that relationship "BECAUSE HE FRIGGIN WANTS TO."

---

Explain please. Be thorough.




Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

I am not denying the obvious power of using parables. But what YOU are saying, Miss E, is that it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for God to use the type AND LEVEL of parabolic discourse that He did. This seems patently wrong to me. God CHOSE to act this way. Period. Again, it comes between CHOICE and NECESSITY...as it always has.

---

quote:

---

First of all, I think that we are creating a bifurcation here that the authors of the Bible would not have intended. I would think that knowing and doing were aspects of the SAME REALITY for them. I think Jesus makes it clear that merely HEARING and ASSENTING to truth without ACTIONS is fruitless. As it was for his original hearers, so it should be for us. To know SHOULD BE to do. So, I agree with you that we need to do what we know to do. Simple enough.

---

quote:

---

Iconoclast:

And why do you think it is that God has to convey Truth indirectly to be effective with us? Why does God have to "trick" us into knowledge?

Is it because we think we already see? If so, what is the name for that "thinking we already see"? It is judgement. Judgement is NOT just another sin. It is the fundamental essence of our old nature - it is our fallen essence. This is the whole point of the story of Adam and Eve. What does stealing the knowledge of good and evil mean - except that we are now judgers?

---

I don't want to trail too far off into this debate, but I'll just say this: Judging others is very different from discerning between good and evil. The former is sin, the latter is required by God. Judging others is a sin, yes, and a very prevalent one (one could even argue that it is the MOST prevalent), but it is one of many sins, all of which can be fought with God's power. My point earlier was only that we shouldn't make judging others any better or worse than any other sin--all should be battled against. I completely agree with you that judging others (i.e., thinking that we can "see") is one of the fundamental walls between us and God.

Mephi:

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, your position on omnibenevolence colors everything, doesn't it? But, frankly, Mephi, if you believe that God loves each one of us, and wants each one of us to have a relationship with him, then you cannot also believe that he keeps us from the Truth that will give us that relationship "BECAUSE HE FRIGGIN WANTS TO."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Explain please. Be thorough.

---

I don't know how to make it more succinct or clear than what I have written above. [SARCASM ALERT]GOD EITHER FRIGGIN LOVES US AND WANTS US TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM OR HE FRIGGIN DOESN'T. If you believe that he does, then how can you also believe that he would keep us from the information that would bring us into that relationship?

Miss E says:

quote:

---

BJS..here's a DISCLAIMER Everything I say here is not directed at you specifically, it's just that your beliefs and thoughts reflect a majority of Christians' and I'm responding to that school of thought in general...I feel it has gone down a tangential path from Jesus' message. It's more a matter of what we EMPHASIZE....I hope everyone can keep that in mind and not argue or misstate my position!

BJS said:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, but God's ultimate purpose is for us to know him and his Truth, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I don't think so. God's ultimate purpose, God's "desire" is for us to be in a loving relationship with God and others (and this entails acts of mercy and compassion). See Matt. 22:34-40. I think "knowledge of the truth" is much lower on the list and is not even important in comparison! (note I'm not saying it's irrelevant though) Jesus certainly pointed to this in His "salvation" parables; they ALL have to do with loving action, NOT "knowledge." See the "Last Judgment" in Matthew 25:31-40.

Here's another hypothesis: If God gave us "Truth" via the rational blueprint method, we'd all be so consumed with our belief, knowledge, and doctrine that we'd miss the "weightier" points of "the law": justice, mercy and good faith, just as the Pharisees did! (Matt. 23:23). (And as I already said, we'd miss the deepest spiritual truths with it because they can't be conveyed as effectively in such a format.) Most of the Church is not any better off than the Pharisees were anyway...we repeat all of their patterns and don't even notice because we have new "vocabulary."

We DON'T need MORE knowledge, we need more LOVE in action. We have books filled with knowledge that will take us to the moon and back, but the "workers are few."

---

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The Good Ship Empiress has once again passed the USS Brett in the night. We're on the same page here, and you don't know it. When I say that our ultimate purpose is to "know" God, I'm certainly not describing some clinical, academic, legalistic experience. I mean exactly what you are describing: seeking Him for the sole purpose of having a LOVING and passionate relationship with him. THAT IS THE TRUTH THAT I BELIEVE GOD IS TRYING TO CONVEY!!!! Okay? But this has nothing to do with the concern I am raising in this topic. What concerns me is that even THAT TRUTH is too foggy. Vexen is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I believe he is genuinely searching, intellectually honest, etc., yet he comes to an entirely different conclusion about this "truth" that we are to have a loving and passionate relationship with God. Why isn't God more clear about who he is so that people like Vexen (and all of us at times) don't have to doubt who and what God is?

Miss E continues:

quote:

---

Yeah...but the point of life is NOT about making "a decision on truth" or "information"! It's about living in humility and acting mercifully in love DAILY. What does the Lord require of us? "To do right, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God" (Micah 5:8).

---

My dear, you are turning this into an argument about "hearing" versus "doing." I'm not debating that. I agree. ACTING on truth is much more imporant than just KNOWING it. Right on. But we do need to know what to act on. Your KNOWING Micah 5:8 has compelled you to ACT on it. Hearing and Doing. Knowing and Acting. Simple enough.

Miss E in conclusion:

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[I should note here that as a Universalist, God's obscurity is likely not so problematic for you. Since, under your position, we will all be saved regardless of our understanding or actualizing of Truth, the clarity of God's revelation doesn't ultimately matter.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think it's unfair to say that. First, I do NOT KNOW for certain that Universalism is true, so my concern extends to all people. Second, even if I were sure Universalism were true, I STILL desire that people know the healing presence of God in their lifetimes! Third, as a Universalist, I believe people will go to some form of "hell"/punishment/separation from God, but that it's TEMPORARY and not ETERNAL. I don't want anyone to go through that, even if it is temporary! Universalism doesn't not rid us of all our problems or suffering!

---

Point well taken. I see what you're saying.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

quote:

---

Basically, the chief difference between me and (it seems like) EVERYONE ELSE HERE is that I want to say that God DOES NOT do the best that he can do in all cases...conveyance of truth included. Period. If you agree with that, you agree with me.

---

quote:

---

It appears to me that we are His handiwork, subject to His desires ( remembering that He is always for us, His "whims" are not evil towards us ) . I don't think we have a say about it in the end anyway, "EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW". We can choose not to serve (worship) God , but in the end of it, "let God be true and every man a liar".

---

Let all the saints in the church say...

AMEN!

Thanks, Don.




Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.