LOGIC IS BEDROCK

[tourist]

Except that isn't what logic is.

.

...logically speaking of course.

 

[maxwel]

These are not semantics Max. Words have meaning, and I am not really sure what you think this distracting from, (if you will excuse me ending a sentence in a preposition). The only things we know about God are those things he has revealed to us through the language of scripture. That language use is profoundly limited in order to accommodate the limited capacity of the human mind.

My Brother,

If you were using the word "comprehensive" as meaning "exhaustive", and I was using it to mean something else, then the simplest solution is to simply use some different terms we can all agree on.
I'm just being practical.

1. I'm not suggesting humans have exhaustive knowledge of God. Neither of us believe that...that would be heresy.

2. And I'm not suggesting YOU are a bad person for raising a semantic issue... semantics are important when talking about doctrine.
Semantics are important, and I have every reason to believe you're a good Christian brother.


I was suggesting we AVOID CONFUSION when we're all talking.

I'm all for avoiding confusion, and making sure we're talking about the same things.

.

 

[maxwel]

More...

Oldhermit,
I have had no intention of being offensive to you in this thread.

If I've been curt or offensive, then I apologize.

I'm only trying to discuss some nitpicky issues, and I realize that can sometimes all come off badly.

I sincerely want to discuss these issues as politely as possible.

God Bless.

 

[oldhermit]

My Brother,

If you were using the word "comprehensive" as meaning "exhaustive", and I was using it to mean something else, then the simplest solution is to simply use some different terms we can all agree on.
I'm just being practical.

1. I'm not suggesting humans have exhaustive knowledge of God. Neither of us believe that...that would be heresy.

2. And I'm not suggesting YOU are a bad person for raising a semantic issue... semantics are important when talking about doctrine.
Semantics are important, and I have every reason to believe you're a good Christian brother.


I was suggesting we AVOID CONFUSION when we're all talking.

I'm all for avoiding confusion, and making sure we're talking about the same things.

.

Perhaps, but the reason the language of scripture is so limited is because we cannot comprehend, we cannot understand the nature of God even at the rudimentary level beyond the boundaries of human language.

 

[oldhermit]

More...

Oldhermit,
I have had no intention of being offensive to you in this thread.

If I've been curt or offensive, then I apologize.

I'm only trying to discuss some nitpicky issues, and I realize that can sometimes all come off badly.

I sincerely want to discuss these issues as politely as possible.

God Bless.

LOL. I have not found you offensive in the least. I enjoy our conversations.

 

[maxwel]

Perhaps, but the reason the language of scripture is so limited is because we cannot comprehend, we cannot understand the nature of God even at the rudimentary level beyond the boundaries of human language.

Your statement above is getting into some extremely complex philosophical issues, which may go way beyond the scope of this thread.


I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that all of these terms have to be carefully defined, and weighed, and then supported with scripture... this is really really intricate and messy stuff.

- What precisely are those "bounds of human language"?
- Can we really not understand God beyond the bounds of language?
- what precisely do we mean by "rudimentary" level?
- what do we mean, precisely, when we say "understand the nature of God" ... how much understanding does it take to understand... what are we even talking about?

Just that one issue about the "bounds of human language"... I'm not entirely sure anyone on the planet can even define that.
This is just getting into really complicated philosophy.


For clarity, in this thread, let's try to find common ground, and find terms and definitions we can agree on, so we can have a good conversation.

 

[Dino246]

Perhaps, but the reason the language of scripture is so limited is because we cannot comprehend, we cannot understand the nature of God even at the rudimentary level beyond the boundaries of human language.

While I think your intent is in the right place, your statement is definitely not.

If we can't understand the nature of God even at the rudimentary level, we know absolutely nothing about Him at all... not even enough to refer to Him as "Him". In reality, we do know a significant amount about God's nature by revelation as recorded in Scripture. Indeed, language is limiting, but it seems like false humility to claim we don't know what we actually do know.

I believe we agree that we don't understand everything, but we seem to disagree on whether we understand anything.

 

[oldhermit]

Your statement above is getting into some extremely complex philosophical issues, which may go way beyond the scope of this thread.


I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that all of these terms have to be carefully defined, and weighed, and then supported with scripture... this is really really intricate and messy stuff.

- What precisely are those "bounds of human language"?
- Can we really not understand God beyond the bounds of language?
- what precisely do we mean by "rudimentary" level?
- what do we mean, precisely, when we say "understand the nature of God" ... how much understanding does it take to understand... what are we even talking about?

Just that one issue about the "bounds of human language"... I'm not entirely sure anyone on the planet can even define that.
This is just getting into really complicated philosophy.


For clarity, in this thread, let's try to find common ground, and find terms and definitions we can agree on, so we can have a good conversation.

I have found that in general, people are not actually afraid of big words; what they are afraid of are big idea. If you feel this is distracting from the OP, perhaps this is something we could discuss on another thread.

 

[maxwel]

I have found that in general, people are not actually afraid of big words; what they are afraid of are big idea. If you feel this is distracting from the OP, perhaps this is something we could discuss on another thread.

I'm afraid of big words AND big ideas.

Please keep things simple for me.


.

 

[oldhermit]

While I think your intent is in the right place, your statement is definitely not.

If we can't understand the nature of God even at the rudimentary level, we know absolutely nothing about Him at all... not even enough to refer to Him as "Him". In reality, we do know a significant amount about God's nature by revelation as recorded in Scripture. Indeed, language is limiting, but it seems like false humility to claim we don't know what we actually do know.

I believe we agree that we don't understand everything, but we seem to disagree on whether we understand anything.

Let me offer a simple example that may help clarify what I am talking about. We know how scripture describes the attribute of love. Most people understand love on at least some level since this is an attribute we all experience at varying degrees. Most people understand the love of a parent toward a child, or a husband for a wife or even the love for a dear friend. Since everyone has different experiences with love, we have different levels of understanding about love. As the quality of love relates to God, our understanding of love is not even worthy of comparison. I do not think we will ever understand the nature of love as it relates to God this side of eternity.

 

[UnderGrace]

I'm afraid of big words AND big ideas.

Please keep things simple for me.


.

If you are afraid of big words then you have this ... hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia

I recommend desensitization therapy.... who know what that means right??

 

[Dino246]

Let me offer a simple example that may help clarify what I am talking about. We know how scripture describes the attribute of love. Most people understand love on at least some level since this is an attribute we all experience at varying degrees. Most people understand the love of a parent toward a child, or a husband for a wife or even the love for a dear friend. Since everyone has different experiences with love, we have different levels of understanding about love. As the quality of love relates to God, our understanding of love is not even worthy of comparison. I do not think we will ever understand the nature of love as it relates to God this side of eternity.

I understand what you're saying, and I still disagree. I think you are using "understand" where the correct term would be "comprehend". We wouldn't be having this conversation if we didn't understand anything about love as it relates to God. If we truly didn't understand anything about the love of God, we would have little reason to believe in or follow the God Who is love.

At this point, I suggest we suspend this line of conversation, because we seem to be at an impasse. I'd rather continue to respect you than debate this point further.

 

[oldhermit]

If you are afraid of big words then you have this ... hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia

I recommend desensitization therapy.... who know what that means right??

LOL. That's funny. It is actually a phobia that describes a morbid or irrational fear of big words. Wish I had thought of it.

 

[UnderGrace]

LOL. That's funny. It is actually a phobia that describes a morbid or irrational fear of big words. Wish I had thought of it.

There you go it is actually "a thing"

 

[maxwel]

If you are afraid of big words then you have this ... hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia

I recommend desensitization therapy.... who know what that means right??

Sorry I didn't respond sooner.

I had to call an ambulance...
after reading this word.

Thanks.

 

[maxwel]

Let me offer a simple example that may help clarify what I am talking about. We know how scripture describes the attribute of love. Most people understand love on at least some level since this is an attribute we all experience at varying degrees. Most people understand the love of a parent toward a child, or a husband for a wife or even the love for a dear friend. Since everyone has different experiences with love, we have different levels of understanding about love. As the quality of love relates to God, our understanding of love is not even worthy of comparison. I do not think we will ever understand the nature of love as it relates to God this side of eternity.

This works for me.
I think we're on the same page here.

The only think I would nitpick is the last sentence:
"I do not think we will ever understand the nature of love as it relates to God this side of eternity."

I would just suggest we qualify the word "understand" in that sentence, the same way we qualified it in the previous sentences.

We do have "some" understanding of God's love, we just don't have a complete understanding of God's love.
Now, how much is "some"?
Well, probably not very much.
But it's still something.
We do have an ability to understand God's love to some degree.

This is part of being made in the image of God.
We don't have infinite or perfect love, but we have SOME ability to love, and therefore some ability to also understand love, because God made us with the ability to love.

Part of being made in the image of God seems to be that we possess many of God's attributes in very limited and finite ways... and this allows us both to communicate with God, and to have some degree of understanding of God.
Our understanding is small, but it is still there.

The only reason we have ANY understanding of God, is because he put some of his own attributes into us.

And these aren't new ideas.

No original thinking going on here, lol.

.

 

[oldhermit]

This works for me.
I think we're on the same page here.

The only think I would nitpick is the last sentence:
"I do not think we will ever understand the nature of love as it relates to God this side of eternity."

I would just suggest we qualify the word "understand" in that sentence, the same way we qualified it in the previous sentences.

We do have "some" understanding of God's love, we just don't have a complete understanding of God's love.
Now, how much is "some"?
Well, probably not very much.
But it's still something.
We do have an ability to understand God's love to some degree.

This is part of being made in the image of God.
We don't have infinite or perfect love, but we have SOME ability to love, and therefore some ability to also understand love, because God made us with the ability to love.

Part of being made in the image of God seems to be that we possess many of God's attributes in very limited and finite ways... and this allows us both to communicate with God, and to have some degree of understanding of God.
Our understanding is small, but it is still there.

The only reason we have ANY understanding of God, is because he put some of his own attributes into us.

And these aren't new ideas.

No original thinking going on here, lol.

.

I am not suggesting that our understanding is non-existent. I merely suggest it is minimal at best because we can only understand any such concept based on our own individual experiences.

 

[oldhermit]

Sorry I didn't respond sooner.

I had to call an ambulance...
after reading this word.

Thanks.

Did you know there is actually a song about this word?

 

[maxwel]

I am not suggesting that our understanding is non-existent. I merely suggest it is minimal at best because we can only understand any such concept based on our own individual experiences.

After I posted I realized that was probably implied.

I just missed that.

 

[maxwel]

Did you know there is actually a song about this word?

You're going to torment me now?