So... is God incompetent or uncaring? Which of the two?

sojourner · Jun 23, 2012

Is your breath part of you?

Yep. It is.

Also, if you want to use Genesis in your favour then we will have to bring up to the table Genesis 18:20-21, Genesis 3:8-13, and Genesis 11:5.

So? Different metaphors create different descriptions and speak to different understandings. God is multivalent. God is both particular and universal. What's your point? The bible isn't an "either/or" proposition.

That isn't implied.

it is implied.

But it is not implied that i am going to become a part of other muslims.

If you become part of that community then you are part of other muslims.

That's just how you see it.

It ain't just me, Hoss.

Koldo · Jun 23, 2012

sojourner said:
Yep. It is.

sojourner said:
So? Different metaphors create different descriptions and speak to different understandings. God is multivalent. God is both particular and universal. What's your point? The bible isn't an "either/or" proposition.

My point is that if you bring up Genesis to try to support your stance that 'God is part of us' and 'We are part of God', then we must then take into consideration the other parts of it that suggest God is not even omniscient. And obviously, if the parts that supports the latter don't correspond to facts as depicted then neither do the verses that support your stance.

sojourner said:
it is implied.

It is not.

sojourner said:
If you become part of that community then you are part of other muslims.

sojourner · Jun 23, 2012

My point is that if you bring up Genesis to try to support your stance that 'God is part of us' and 'We are part of God', then we must then take into consideration the other parts of it that suggest God is not even omniscient. And obviously, if the parts that supports the latter don't correspond to facts as depicted then neither do the verses that support your stance.

So? Look, this isn't about coming up with definitions. It's about taking theological positions. God is described both as being imminent and transcendent. God is described alternately as being benevolent and vindictive. God is described one time as being omniscient, and another as not. So what? These are theological positions taken by the authors at any given point in time. For purposes of this thread, I took a theological position that is supported by the texts, and that brings further light to the topic.

Koldo · Jun 23, 2012

sojourner said:
So? Look, this isn't about coming up with definitions. It's about taking theological positions. God is described both as being imminent and transcendent. God is described alternately as being benevolent and vindictive. God is described one time as being omniscient, and another as not. So what? These are theological positions taken by the authors at any given point in time. For purposes of this thread, I took a theological position that is supported by the texts, and that brings further light to the topic.

It is supported by your interpretation of the texts.
To say that it is a christian theological perspective is only accurate to the extent that you are a christian and that it is your ( and some others') perspective.
To say that people "have to understand that if we're going to talk about the universe in theological terms, that we are part of God", the christian God, is blatantly wrong. This is essentially trying to promote a point of view that isn't even hold by the majority and saying it is the valid one without any justification to do so.

sojourner · Jun 23, 2012

It is supported by your interpretation of the texts.

Any reading of the texts requires interpretation, so no problem there.

To say that it is a christian theological perspective is only accurate to the extent that you are a christian and that it is your ( and some others') perspective.

Since I am a Christian, and so are many, many more, and since it is our interpretation that matters, I don't see a problem here, either. You seem to infer that there is some one, correct and empirical interpretation. There is not.

To say that people "have to understand that if we're going to talk about the universe in theological terms, that we are part of God", the christian God, is blatantly wrong.

No it isn't. It is a theological position that has merit.

This is essentially trying to promote a point of view that isn't even hold by the majority and saying it is the valid one without any justification to do so.

I'd be willing to bet that more Xtians agree with me than don't.
**edit** Even if not a majority, at least many do; it is biblically-based, and so is justified.

Koldo · Jun 23, 2012

sojourner said:
Any reading of the texts requires interpretation, so no problem there.
Since I am a Christian, and so are many, many more, and since it is our interpretation that matters, I don't see a problem here, either. You seem to infer that there is some one, correct and empirical interpretation. There is not.
No it isn't. It is a theological position that has merit.
I'd be willing to bet that more Xtians agree with me than don't.
**edit** Even if not a majority, at least many do; it is biblically-based, and so is justified.

You have gone from 'we have to understand that....we are part of God' to 'we can understand that....we are part of God'.

sojourner · Jun 23, 2012

Koldo said:
You have gone from 'we have to understand that....we are part of God' to 'we can understand that....we are part of God'.

Big whoop! Hope you don't have a thrombo over one little word, either one of which is perfectly fine in this situation.

Koldo · Jun 23, 2012

sojourner said:
Big whoop! Hope you don't have a thrombo over one little word, either one of which is perfectly fine in this situation.

Different words, different meanings, different sentences.
One says it is possible to understand something in a given manner, the other that one must understand it in a given manner.

sojourner · Jun 23, 2012

Koldo said:
Different words, different meanings, different sentences.
One says it is possible to understand something in a given manner, the other that one must understand it in a given manner.

And from my perspective, and the theological construct out of which I understand God, either is fine. If you want to have kittens over the fine distinctions that's your bidness, but don't drag me into it.

Koldo · Jun 23, 2012

sojourner said:
And from my perspective, and the theological construct out of which I understand God, either is fine. If you want to have kittens over the fine distinctions that's your bidness, but don't drag me into it.

That is not fine. It is wrong to say that one must accept a given perspective when you offer no reason to do so. Bear the burden of proof, or give up this statement. You can not have your cake and eat it too.

sojourner · Jun 23, 2012

Koldo said:
That is not fine. It is wrong to say that one must accept a given perspective when you offer no reason to do so. Bear the burden of proof, or give up this statement. You can not have your cake and eat it too.

I offered several good reason, which you chose to completely dismiss. That's your problem, not mine.
I'll not give up the statement. It's fine as-is and it stands as-is. Get over it.

Koldo · Jun 23, 2012

sojourner said:
I offered several good reason, which you chose to completely dismiss. That's your problem, not mine.

And I have already said why those aren't reasons to accept your argument.
That's your problem, not mine.

Koldo · Jun 23, 2012

sojourner said:
I'll not give up the statement. It's fine as-is and it stands as-is. Get over it.

It is incorrect as is. Get over it.

sojourner · Jun 23, 2012

Koldo said:
It is incorrect as is. Get over it.

Nope. Sorry.
You don't have to buy it, but that's How It Is.

predavlad · Jun 25, 2012

sojourner said:
Any reading of the texts requires interpretation, so no problem there.

Why ? Why would an omniscient and omnipotent god inspire people to write texts that require interpretation, instead of clear texts with clear instructions ? (for example a math book).

sojourner said:
Since I am a Christian, and so are many, many more, and since it is our interpretation that matters, I don't see a problem here, either. You seem to infer that there is some one, correct and empirical interpretation. There is not.

Some things cannot be interpreted, they have to be taken as they are(math formulas seem familiar). Also, other things have a single interpretation. But this takes the discussion back to my previous question.
But I would ask you a question - if you have to talk about a subject you have no idea about, what do you do ? Be as vague and as cryptic as possible. Is that Bible (or most religious texts) that way ? Of course. But this doesn't ring a bell to any religious people for some reason.

sojourner said:
I'd be willing to bet that more Xtians agree with me than don't.
**edit** Even if not a majority, at least many do; it is biblically-based, and so is justified.

I'm willing to bet you that more than 50% of christians have never read the bible (even though they own one).

PS: Sorry for barging in on your discussion, it just seemed interesting

So... is God incompetent or uncaring? Which of the two?

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Koldo

Outstanding Member

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Koldo

Outstanding Member

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Koldo

Outstanding Member

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Koldo

Outstanding Member

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Koldo

Outstanding Member

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

Koldo

Outstanding Member

Koldo

Outstanding Member

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

predavlad

Skeptic