God, explain yourself, this instant

[Nyril]

Okay, Ive heard this a number of times so numerous that I cant really be bothered to count it (likely around 5-6). The reason Im given that man cannot understand god, is that because god is infinite (this part is usually bolded), and cannot explain himself to finite (this part is also usually bolded) man.

But, if god is infinite, I assume that includes literary skills. I never seem to read on any of your posts that god can do anything except write a book, so I propose he do just that, write a book. To you, god is all powerful, if he can do anything he wants, he should be able to explain himself completely and fully to ourselves. For example, if I gave him a word limit of 1, he would probably use the word "omnipotent", but instead Ill be nice and give him 10,000 reasonably sized pages.

Now, for debate, is this a reasonable request? It would certainly clear up any misconceptions we might have, and I dont think he can make an excuse of power, if he can write one book that supposedly got through perfectly with all the instructions we need to get to the permanent time-share in the sky, he can manage this.

[Nyril]

Oh! Now I understand! The problem is that you don't like the God communicated His will. He has given us His Word, and the tools we need for the understanding and interpretation of His Word, but it requires faith, trust and belief on our part for those tools to be effective.

Lay off the ad hom's.

So what you are really saying is that God didn't put an article in the newspaper so that everybody and his brother could or would want to understand, and that is what bugs you

What I'm saying is, you're telling me god wrote a book, and then 5 different religions look at the same book, and arrive at different conclusions to how god's will could be carried out. Now I may just be picky, but it would amuse me if they could at the very least agree internally, before demanding I change my heathen ways.

According to who? To you?

Indeed.

The question was, "If God expects for me to dedicate my life to him then he should give me reasons to do so, that are well explained"

Your reasons.

1. "He created man"
2. "He loves His creation"
3. "He was to commune with His creation eternally."

1. So what? From what I've heard from you about him, this would of taken him less then a second, used less then 1/10000000 of his concentration/power/etc... He didn't quite go out of his way here.

2. I suppose he loves his creation enough to drown everyone on it except a handful of people. Also, he loves it enough to turn cities into salt when they displease him. Also, there was the entire killing all the first born in Egypt thing. If this is love, I'd rather not be aquainted with this sicko.

3. As for three, this falls back to the "so what" category. I'd like to hang out with attractive women all day, but that doesn't happen. A perfect being should have no wants, so my attentions should be irrelevant to it.

[wgreen]

But god is all powerful, isn't he? Could god explain it to us if he was so inclined?

I guess He could do that, at least in specific instances. For example, maybe He could explain a specific tragic circumstance (why it was necessary, etc.). I say "I guess," because I'm not sure our minds could comprehend all of the details of the "big picture" the way God can.

But assuming he can without changing our nature, why doesn't he? This reminds me of Joseph. When his brothers sold him into slavery, God did not tell him why. Neither did he explain to why he allowed him to be imprisoned in egypt. But when He met his brothers again, themselves having come to Egypt for food during a widespread famine, and Joseph having been made second to Pharaoh, he said:

Genesis 45

5"Now do not be grieved or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life.


6"For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are still five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvesting.


7"God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant in the earth, and to keep you alive by a great deliverance.

In Joseph could have understood the plan if God had told Him, so God had other reasons, like the development of Josephs character and relationship with God.

But we have 5 faiths that use the same book given to us, and they all arrive at different answers. Isn't that problem?

That's a good question. I think there are at least several reasons why those who believe the Bible could disagree about its interpretation.

1.Sometimes there are differences in opinion about how best to translate the Greek (or Hebrew) certain difficult passages.

2.Sometimes we have our own biases or agendas through which we see a distorted view of the facts of Scripture. The same is true when we interpret the facts of nature. Experts disagree partly because they are viewing the texts from their own perspective.

3.Any writings can be interpreted many different ways. I remember a professor telling me that there were 25 or so academic journals devoted to the interpretation of Shakespeare. Even very simple and seemingly clear passages can be variously interpreted. The Bible says "God so loved the world," and interpretations of this could vary: what is your definition of "love?" what does he mean by "world?" Does He still love the world? To answer these questions we need to look at the passage in the context of the whole Bible. How are these words used elsewhere and in similar contexts. Language itself is, in a sense, limited.

4.Paul wrote "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised (! Cor 2:14). " We cannot understand the Scriptures properly without God giving us the ability and willingness to understand. I think this applies to those who believe in Jesus and those who don't. Paul wrote to the believers at Ephesus: "I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints (Eph 1:18 )." He wrote to the Christians at Corinth: to The spiritual content of the Scriptures is spiritually understood. I'm not sure this process is mystical, though it may be. It involves our will (being open to the evidence for a particular interpretation) and our biases, and also our current understanding of the whole of scripture.

5. We do not have a good enough grasp on the whole of Scripture, and this is necessary for proper interpretation. We need to interpret each passage in the light of its context in the whole Bible. We all lack such complete knowledge and understanding.

6. Jesus intentionally spoke in parables. This leads one to the conclusion that He intended to veil His meaning somewhat. His disciples asked Him why in Matt. 13. His answer is somewhat difficult to interpret, but I think it goes back to point 4 above. Before He taught the parable in Matt 13, He said: "He who has ears, let him hear."

Sincerely,

Bill Green

[concerro]

Oh! Now I understand! The problem is that you don't like the God communicated His will. He has given us His Word, and the tools we need for the understanding and interpretation of His Word, but it requires faith, trust and belief on our part for those tools to be effective. So what you are really saying is that God didn't put an article in the newspaper so that everybody and his brother could or would want to understand, and that is what bugs you.

I think the bible is pretty clear on why God wants you to dedicate your life to Him. He created man, He loves His creation, and He was to commune with His creation eternally.


That's not really a reason.

According to who? To you? So now God is dependent upon what you or I feel is sufficient reason? You make something, and decide how you want to interact with it, and you do so of your own reasons. Do I or even the thing you made have justification to come back to you and tell you how to interact with your creation? or that your reasons for doing as you will in relation with your creation are not really reasons?

Hogwash.

Obviously his word and tooks are lacking if we have several interpretations of the same book and we are having this discussion. I will have faith, trust and belief when I have good reasons to do so.
Of course it is insufficient. Sufficient is meeting the standard. The standard of effective communication is understood communication. Obviously God's method leads to much misunderstanding.
Also look at it like this. God is in the position of a soliciter. Being that I am being solicited. I get to judge his approach. I feel like I need more details before I invest in whatever is being sold at this time.

[RevJP]

I will have faith, trust and belief when I have good reasons to do so.

That then would not be faith or belief, but acceptance of knowable fact. God requires faith from us.

God is in the position of a soliciter. Being that I am being solicited. I get to judge his approach. I feel like I need more details before I invest in whatever is being sold at this time.

I disagree. God simply has what is needed, holding it out plainly for anyone to freely take. There are those who walk by and see the "FREE" sign and continue walking for their own reasons. The thing is though, He will always be there, with that "FREE" sign, waiting for anyone who wants to stop and say "Hey, can I have some of this?"

He is infinitely patient, and has all the time in... well in time. He will wait for a long time for someone to pause for a moment and truly look at what He has for him.

[MagusYanam]

Firstly, good reasoning is nowhere near the same thing as acceptance of fact. Practical reason depends on a certain measure of faith on its own propositions, and faith without practical reason is meaningless. In fact, one of the central guiding authorities to our faith (according to us Episcopalians) is reason.

As to the God as solicitor / God as one who offers analogies, I have a few things to say as well. I can't imagine God Himself as being a solicitor, unless he is soliciting for doing what is right - so in a sense this is not a very good analogy. I think the God who offers something is a better analogy, but is lacking in a few key respects. God is not merely offering salvation. He creates it, is continually working within us and without to improve our souls. He is constantly with us - His work creates our conscience, a dim spark of the divine in human nature.

What God offers is the exhortation to our souls through the Holy Ghost to be made complete through correct thought, speech, behaviour. Salvation is the outcome, it is the fulfillment, not the entirety of what God offers. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to work good in this world, rather than simply wait for the consummation.

That being said, I think there are many who view Christianity with scepticism, because they see the 'gift' Christianity has to offer them with strings attached. Yes, you will be saved if you become Christian, but only if you believe doctrines x, y, z and t and think p, q and r about key political issues. There are those among the conservatives who would want to deny me status as a Christian (and thus a place in heaven) simply because I voted for Kerry or reject penal-satisfaction theory (even though I'm as decent an Episcopalian as you're liable to find anywhere). Is it truly a 'free gift', then, when proclaimed by people with ulterior agenda?

[RevJP]

Good points Magus.

While I cannot agree with you on the Kerry issue, the fact remains that supporting him or the better candidate is is not a Christianity issue.

Do people base their political decisions on their faith? Absolutely. But is it right to enforce your political/social conscience on others and try to base that infringment on Christianity? No.