From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Thu Apr 24 2003 - 13:55:05 EDT
[Oops, neglected to post this response to Jason - JimA]
Just for the sake of discussion... (i.e., no hostility intended at all)
JimA
igevolution@earthlink.net wrote:
>Jim Armstrong writes:
>We paint on canvas as a reflection of our visual system and sense of aesthetics. As others have observed, our creations are almost(?) entirely bounded by and are a reflection of what we are and what we know. We create out of our being and we very rarely create something and then find it does or comprises something unexpected and ultimately unexplainable.
>
>With that in mind, it is not unreasonable to assert with equal
>confidence that the property of time is NOT meaningless in the being of
>God.
>______________
>
>Nice illlustration, but I would say that it does not extrapolate upwards as far as God.
>
A belief which you evidently hold, and you are certainly entitled to
hold it.
> God is boundless.
>
An assertion which many may agree with, but an assertion nonetheless,
beyond our ability to validate.
> The adjectives that theology gives for him
>
Theology is essentially a man-made construct (or rather, a gajillion of
them!), even if informed by revelation. It's not monolithic. Rather, it
is unique for each of us, with some aspects shared with others to a
degree that allows us to fellowship and build community...much as we are
doing here!
These adjectives are also commonly expressed, but only one is found in
scripture to my knowledge. They are composite of speculations which may
or may not reflect reality and/or revelation.
>(omnipotent,
>
widely used, but what do you make of the unresolved battle with Lucifer?
> eternal, omniscient,
>
of what possible interest would a time-constrained universe be to one
who can know everything about it before hand? I know, neither of us can
really answer that question in absolute terms, but even to us mortals,
surprises, the unwinding of a good story, discovery, and other
artifacts of unpredictability are "the spice of life".
> omnipresent,
>
and what do you make of Jesus' prayers to God who evidently (and in some
cases very specifically) is "somewhere else"?
> omnibenevolent,
>
ah, and then there is this tricky question about the definition of
benevolence - toward his overall purpose, or toward us, or ??
> etc.) describe Him not as He is, but as He is not. He is not bounded by any of the characterists which bind us.
>
a restatement of the earlier assertion, in slightly different pajamas. I
suppose it's picky, but "omni" sure seems to me to be in the "is" category.
> I see no reason why God should be bounded in one way and not in others.
>
OK, but do you see a reason for us to be constrained in time?
>Also, someone has said (I know I'm a bad academic to not know who it was; please forgive me) that God is "that being greater that which nothing can be thought."
>
"thought" being a man-thing.
>Granted, that this expression is not divinely inspired, but I believe it to be true.
>
Fair enough.
> If God is the greatest entity in existence, whether in our universe or out of it, than He must, according to the above statement, be fully knowledgeable about the future and fully aware of all time simultaneously. Otherwise, there could be something greater.
>
An interesting leap of logic. To imagine something does not ensure that
it is, or can be realized. If God were to be in some way limited
(shudder!), perhaps that is a limitation that cannot be overcome by any
being in any way. It still leaves God as the "greatest entity in
existence", does it not?
> Not the surest footing to build an argument on, I know, but while we're bantering with illustrations, here's another.
>
Some of my responses do not represent the surest footing either, but we
are exploring...an activity that is prone to some insecurities! :-)
>
>Jason
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Apr 24 2003 - 13:56:12 EDT