Spirituality
02 Jul 22
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116984
@kellyjay saidSovereign, responsible and accountable.
When you describe God how do you do it
Merciful, righteous and morally unimpeachable.
Kind, gentle and understanding.
Victorious, triumphant and inclusive.
Just a few adjectives and attributes to kick off with my immediate thoughts.
Edit; good thread idea btw 👍🏻
02 Jul 22
@divegeester saidI loved everything you just said!
Sovereign, responsible and accountable.
Merciful, righteous and morally unimpeachable.
Kind, gentle and understanding.
Victorious, triumphant and inclusive.
Just a few adjectives and attributes to kick off with my immediate thoughts.
Edit; good thread idea btw 👍🏻
@divegeester saidThat God doesn't really show up in the Old Testament.
Sovereign, responsible and accountable.
Merciful, righteous and morally unimpeachable.
Kind, gentle and understanding.
Victorious, triumphant and inclusive.
Just a few adjectives and attributes to kick off with my immediate thoughts.
Edit; good thread idea btw 👍🏻
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116984
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThe OP wasn’t specifically asking about the traditional interpretation of the Hebrew God.
That God doesn't really show up in the Old Testament.
@divegeester saidTraditional interpretation?
The OP wasn’t specifically asking about the traditional interpretation of the Hebrew God.
The Bible is either the word of God or it isn't. If God's attributes are not directly relatable to, or evidenced by, the Bible then on what basis do you claim the following:
'Sovereign, responsible and accountable.
Merciful, righteous and morally unimpeachable.
Kind, gentle and understanding.
Victorious, triumphant and inclusive.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116984
02 Jul 22
@ghost-of-a-duke saidWhy do you adhere to that dichotomised thinking ?
The Bible is either the word of God or it isn't.
@divegeester saidChristians generally get their view of God from the Bible. You described Him as Sovereign, responsible and accountable. Merciful, righteous and morally unimpeachable. Kind, gentle and understanding. Victorious, triumphant and inclusive.
Why do you adhere to that dichotomised thinking ?
Are these not simply cherry-picked attributes from the Bible?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116984
02 Jul 22
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYes they are.
Christians generally get their view of God from the Bible. You described Him as Sovereign, responsible and accountable. Merciful, righteous and morally unimpeachable. Kind, gentle and understanding. Victorious, triumphant and inclusive.
Are these not simply cherry-picked attributes from the Bible?
02 Jul 22
@ghost-of-a-duke saidHow do you describe God, or is all you got is a disagreement with how dive
Christians generally get their view of God from the Bible. You described Him as Sovereign, responsible and accountable. Merciful, righteous and morally unimpeachable. Kind, gentle and understanding. Victorious, triumphant and inclusive.
Are these not simply cherry-picked attributes from the Bible?
started off?
@kellyjay saidIf there is a creator entity, perhaps the "laws" of nature are the nearest human beings have got so far to perceiving its "attributes". I believe the way that non-animist religions anthropomorphize a creator entity to create their various God figures is just anthroplogical and psychological clutter.
When you describe God how do you do it, and why do you believe what you say!?
03 Jul 22
@kellyjay saidYou don't specify to which god you refer, but assuming that you mean the Christian god then I think nonexistent sums it up fairly well. If we're playing 'let's pretend' , and as you have stated elsewhere your god is in control of everything, all of the time, then the words I would use to describe him are best not writ in polite company, lest one should cop a forum ban.
When you describe God how do you do it, and why do you believe what you say!?
This is Jordan Peterson defining "God" and I find it very interesting indeed.
It does not clash particularly with my worldview.
Having said that, in a way, it is not helpful - and it's also an example of a trademark Peterson rhetorical gimmick: playing around with definitions and THEN not being consistent with he has proposed by conflating it with other definitions. He is so often a sophist in this regard.
This "unhelpful" aspect is because it broadens the definition of "God" too much ~ kind of rinsing it of its practical and well-established meaning.
And so, it obfuscates communication between people like KellyJay - who believes in a very specific take-it-or-leave-it God figure with a narrative that has given rise to one of the great world religions - and people like myself who are open to the idea of there being a creator entity.