A thought to ponder

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I realize you received the ultimate prize in these here parts, the virtual pat on the back from bbarr, but I find myself as the proverbial fly in the ointment on this one.

[b]Actually, my contention is that locutions like 'God is compassionate' should elicit a whole host of feelings, dispositions, images and judgments which, in their entirety, constitut pedic Play-Doh, well, we're going to have some irreconcilable differences.[/b]

Presumably, the ingredients are unimportant, it is the potpourri's overall smell we are after? If the 'it' that we are after is ineffable, who's to say that we ever successfully reach it? It almost sounds as though you are contending that God Himself is ineffable... which, although it shares elements of the sentiment 'through the glass darkly,' its overall meaning is something altogether different.

Well, yes, it is the overall effect, the 'it', the indescribable 'wow'. This is exactly what ineffable means. God's nature transcends all human language. And from a Christian perspective, this makes sense. Language emerges within a social order, in creation, and if God is really above and beyond creation, language could never encapsulate the divine essence.

Those types of locutions, or did you have something else in mind? The fact of the matter is, God has obviously used our own frame of reference in describing Himself and the situation to man. When God is described using certain attributes, He has done so knowing that there already exists an inherent understanding of the concepts used, irrespective of the perfection of said understanding.

I agree. The fact is that Christianity is uniquely incarnational and sacramental. God comes into the universe and reveals Himself as a person; He fills people with grace and mediates grace through ordinary forms, water and bread as baptism and Eucharist. But when it coms to God's nature, something which exists outside and above creation, language cannot describe Him. It might evoke or elicit something which touches on God; but it cannot express it exactly.

I must again inquire regarding the exact locutions to which you refer as construed as 'fictional stories or poems.' If you mean the allegories used by the Lord Jesus Christ, well, duh. If, however, you mean that all of Scripture is meant to be a malleable encyclopedic Play-Doh, well, we're going to have some irreconcilable differences.

Well, no. What I mean is that statements regarding God's nature cannot be taken like formal language. We should be cautious of interpreting any serious propositional content. As for His activity in salvation history and revelation to mankind, I am not in any dispute with you. It is precisely what Christianity means that we can talk about God on a personal basis, as a someone, as something incarnate in the world and interacting with humanity. I just think that caution must be exercised when we discuss His divine nature and other mysteries.

This touches on a broader point that I would like to discuss, religion emerges in a culture and is culturally mediated. To use an example from my religion, as a Catholic, I believe that Jesus Christ is mysteriously present in the Eucharist. Now when I discuss this doctrine with non-Catholics, I can clarify with philosophical explanations to solve any formal logical difficulties -- yet every time there is always a dumbfounded 'What does that mean? What on earth is transsubstantiation?' The fact is that my understanding of the real presence of Jesus Christ is not learned from philosophical description but from culture. We kneel on both knees and bow in front of the Eucharist, we parade it through the streets and serenade it with music, we ring bells at the consecration, we incence the Eucharist at benedictions, we sing hymns and special prayers and sometimes we kneel and receive it on the tongue. It is in fact these cultural practices which eventually evoke this sense of Christ's ineffable presence. The presence, like God's essence, cannot be described exactlty by language; rather, language and culture are exploited to evoke it.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Presumably, the ingredients are unimportant, it is the potpourri's overall smell we are after? If the 'it' that we are after is ineffable, who's to say that we ever successfully reach it? It almost sounds as though you are contending that God Himself is ineffable... which, although it shares elements of the sentiment 'through the glass darkly,' its ove xactlty by language; rather, language and culture are exploited to evoke it.

God's nature transcends all human language. And from a Christian perspective, this makes sense. Language emerges within a social order, in creation, and if God is really above and beyond creation, language could never encapsulate the divine essence.
Putting it this way--- that words can never encapsulate His essence--- simply restates the same idea from another angle. The fact of the matter is, when we use terms to describe God's character, that is exactly what we are doing: summarizing in a condensed form concepts which exceed the bounds of the 'capsule.' My issue with the term 'ineffable' is that it infers that really nothing can be known about Him, which we both know isn't true. For instance, the sacred Tetragramaton YHWH (Tyndale's erroneous transliteration) points to a specific name which represents the full name of God. This was done to create a mystique around His name, that He obviously wasn't intent on creating--- being a personal God, introducing Himself to Moses, revealing His plan and etc., are all signs of a person intent on removing any mystery around themselves, not perpetuating the same.

Certainly, we are constrained by our language, in the sense that our language can only approximate His attributes. I do not contend that any one word or any series of words we might muster up are capable of fully describing Him. Although not on the same plane, there exist similar situations. For instance, we can conceptualize an existence without time, even while we find ourselves bound by the same. Our conceptualization of this state does not require a wealth of words in order for us to convey the thought to another person; it is a concept that would become bogged down by more words, less clear with further explanation.

So, we prime the pump of the mind with the few words which begin to describe that timeless state, and the mind fills in the blanks. Somewhat akin to this process are the words we use to describe God's attributes. We use terms such as justice, righteousness, truth and love, and then qualify them further with 'beyond the highest that man can attain, or even think of attaining.' While there exists an element of ineffability, it is not without direction.

This you have said by saying we cannot express Him exactly, and I agree with that sentiment. I just felt the need to clarify the idea of ineffable and how it applies to God. Too often, folks are content in saying that spirituality is all one big mystery and, in so doing, all manner of boneheaded ideas are given currency right along (or in place of) the truth. After all, if none of it can be nailed down with actual words with actual meanings, whose to say your mystery is any more 'right' than that guy's mystery over there?

I consider most of what passes as Christianity these days as abysmal failure. We are unable to articulate specifics about even God's general character, and wrongly apply the mystery of which Paul spoke about to pretty much everything. We cannot speak to the standards of God, of what His overall plan is, or even why--- in a meaningful way--- man is in the situation he finds himself. To a world in desperate need of brain surgeons, the most we can offer is tourniquet kits.

I don't mean to imply that everything can be explained to a non-Christian... or even to a Christian stuck in degenerate thinking. In fact, most of what occurs on this thread is a direct result of non-Christians/degenerate Christians demanding answers in calculus when they haven't an understanding of basic math yet. However, I firmly believe that this personal God that we worship intends to be known fully, and is impatiently tapping His foot waiting for someone--- anyone--- who wants to be blessed with the knowledge of Him. That full knowledge will only be fully realized when we are through this veil, but He has nonetheless given us many adequate tools to be a lot more concise than what is currently bandied about by the majority of us.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
In context of the thread, I refer to a God who condemns people to eternal torment. Such a God is not love, nor loving, nor compassionate.

Followers of that kind of God must be primarily motivated by fear.

Agreed. It is Man himself who has to choose whether to suffer or not. God gave us brains to do so. But you can't do it if you're afraid.

Originally posted by Brightwave
Agreed. It is Man himself who has to choose whether to suffer or not. God gave us brains to do so. But you can't do it if you're afraid.

Feel the fear and do it anyway😵

There is too much pain in this world for there to be a 'god' .... how, if you were all powerful would you allow so many horrible things to take place? I know I could not sit by given the chance to change things...
I think there is some power at play but not a 'god' ... maybe we will all find out in 2012??