Can you describe your god objectively?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Being holy, God cannot abide the presence of sin.

The Hebrew notion of holiness (kedushah), as used in the Torah, is not really a moral term—and so whether or not God can “abide the presence of sin” (whatever you mean by that) does not follow from “being holy” (kadosh).

I only call you on that because I have seen that statement (or ...[text shortened]... ot be seen as an ontological separateness, and the world itself is infused with kedushah.[/b]

The Hebrew notion of holiness (kedushah), as used in the Torah, is not really a moral term—and so whether or not God can “abide the presence of sin” (whatever you mean by that) does not follow from “being holy” (kadosh).

God cannot abide the presence of sin. By that I mean, God must either remove a sinner from His presence, or redeem that sinner - there is not a third option. Fallen man is a moral situation which God will not (cannot) abide forever. Why? Because God is holy.

That God is holy indicates that He is utterly set apart from the world and undefiled by it. So, in order for a person to live eternally in God's presence, he or she must be made holy; i.e., become separate from the world and undefiled by it, like God. This is precisely how God's holiness (kedushah) is inextricably linked to the utter inability of unrepentant sinners to abide in His presence forever (and vice versa).

Originally posted by whodey
Is it possible to describe the infinite objectively?

Yes.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The Hebrew notion of holiness (kedushah), as used in the Torah, is not really a moral term—and so whether or not God can “abide the presence of sin” (whatever you mean by that) does not follow from “being holy” (kadosh).

God cannot abide the presence of sin. By that I mean, God must either remove a sinner from His presence, or redeem that sinn ...[text shortened]... the utter inability of unrepentant sinners to abide in His presence forever (and vice versa).[/b]

Because it's afield from the question that started this thread, I'll start another to reply...

Originally posted by josephw
God is.

This is brilliant if I do say so myself.

Originally posted by josephw
This is brilliant if I do say so myself.

He not only is. But He was and is to come.

Originally posted by jaywill
He not only is. But He was and is to come.

That's brilliant jaywill.

so he's a garkjesh then...cheers you two, nice one

Originally posted by Agerg
so he's a garkjesh then...cheers you two, nice one

Seriously, I wasn't sure I understood your initial question. There are some statements that my God made about Himself. For example such as found in chapters 40 through 45 or so of Isaiah the prophet.

Do any of those fit your criteria of being "objective"?

Originally posted by Agerg
so he's a garkjesh then...cheers you two, nice one

"Was", "is", and "is to come" are fairly straight-forward, objective ways of speaking about God. It's not as if Jaywill and Josephw have introduced unfamiliar adjectives like, for instance, Adonai or Elohim or Hakkadosh, which they certainly could have.

Are you really interested in discussing God objectively?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
"Was", "is", and "is to come" are fairly straight-forward, objective ways of speaking about God. It's not as if Jaywill and Josephw have introduced unfamiliar adjectives like, for instance, Adonai or Elohim or Hakkadosh, which they certainly could have.

Are you really interested in discussing God objectively?

Did you all forget the "I am that I am?" :'(

Originally posted by epiphinehas
"Was", "is", and "is to come" are fairly straight-forward, objective ways of speaking about God. It's not as if Jaywill and Josephw have introduced unfamiliar adjectives like, for instance, Adonai or Elohim or Hakkadosh, which they certainly could have.

Are you really interested in discussing God objectively?

Are you really interested in discussing God objectively?
I am indeed...lemme give you an example; whether this is a good or a poor description of your god's attributes I'd be satisfied with something like:

-For all things that can be conceived, god can do all things for which a logical contradiction does not arise
-For all things that can be known, god knows them (insert reasonable set of things that can be known here)
-For all objectives to be met, there exists no entity that shall succeed in (or conceive a reliable method of) meeting any particular objective, where god fails
-For all actions performed by god to achieve X there exists no set of actions Y (not used by god) for which X was achieved more accurately/reliably/.../economically using Y
-With the definition that "bad deed" is an action that negatively affects an entity's experience in physical/spiritual life and "good deed" being the negation of "bad deed" [whereby that entity may attach a value to how "bad" such a deed was... < 0 implies it was a "bad dead", >= 0 implies it was "a good deed"] ; then the summation of all of god's "deeds" that directly affect any particular entity can always be honestly (though subjectively) measured by that entity as having a greater positive value than the summation of any other entity's deeds that affect it directly.
-and so on...

Note that regardless of whether this is a reasonable, or completely ridiculous way of defining god, it is more useful than:

-God is perfectly good
-is the alpha and omega
-is what he is
-is perfectly loving
-is without sin
-and so on...

*edit* my edit count is so bleedin high because I couldn't stop a bloody right bracket from being a smiley, grrrr... (in addition to tweaks here and there)

Originally posted by epiphinehas
"Was", "is", and "is to come" are fairly straight-forward, objective ways of speaking about God. It's not as if Jaywill and Josephw have introduced unfamiliar adjectives like, for instance, Adonai or Elohim or Hakkadosh, which they certainly could have.

Are you really interested in discussing God objectively?

"Was", "is", and "is to come" are fairly straight-forward, objective ways of speaking about God. It's not as if Jaywill and Josephw have introduced unfamiliar adjectives like, for instance, Adonai or Elohim or Hakkadosh, which they certainly could have

Then similarly when someone asks for example: "How would you describe Sarah?" you could reply "She is what she is" and the questioner will of course be vastly more enlightened as to what Sarah is like given this description.
Furthermore, the questioner having not previously assumed that she is what she is would have gleaned far more information from the above answer than say: "she's a Garkjesh"

I came across a mention that Jesus was sinless in another thread and it got me thinking about this thread.
If Jesus was God and sin is acting contrary to Gods will then he was sinless by definition. So saying Jesus was sinless is a virtually meaningless tautology.

twhitehear writes:

===========================================
I came across a mention that Jesus was sinless in another thread and it got me thinking about this thread.
If Jesus was God and sin is acting contrary to Gods will then he was sinless by definition. So saying Jesus was sinless is a virtually meaningless tautology.
========================================

It is unfortunate that some people so quickly dismiss the revelation of the Bible seemingly with no heart to look deeper into its meaning.

Paradoxes there are in the Bible. Some of us choose to stick with it and prayerfully fathom its depths. Others seem eager to grasp at an excuse to dismiss it.

Here's a paradox:

The Bible says that God cannot be tempted with sin on one hand:

"Let no one say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted of evil, and He Himself tempts no one." (James 1:3)

So God cannot be tempted to sin. Wonderful. Yet on the other hand we see that as a man Jesus Christ was tempted to sin:

"For [Christ] being tempted in that which He Himself has suffered, He is able to help thoe who are being tempted." (Heb.2:18)

"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all respects like us, yet without sin." (Heb. 4:14)

There you have it. God cannot be tempted to sin but Jesus was tempted in every way as all men are tempted. And John 1:1,14 says that the Word was God and that the Word became flesh. God became a man.

We have known about paradoxes like this for centries. They have been mused on and considered and debated for about two millennia.

Some of us believe that Jesus Christ is the mingling of God and man. He is the mingling of humanity with divinity. He is the mingling of the limited human man with the unlimited and eternal God.

To mingle two or more things together is to combine them in such a way that the components remain distinguishable in the combination. In Jesus Christ we discern the humanity of the sin prone man mingled with the sinlessness of the eternal God.

Christ's not sinning was because He LIVED out the sinless God with whom He was mingled. Christ's being sinless was due not to His inability to sin as God, but to His allowing the sinless God to totally control His life and be expressed from within Him.

Christ LIVED God. He was God become a man. But this man, the Son, lived in oneness with God the Father in a mingled way, in an incorporated way, in a blended way, and in a way of "organic" union.

And His salvation brings the believers into exactly the same condition of being mingled with God:

"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17) so that we who believe into Christ, also have the privledge, the honor, to be trained to live out God and allow God to live through us.


To those struck with contradictions and paradoxes in this profound book, I would advise you to prayerfully stick with it. Examine some of the writings of men and women who have explored these mysteries in the past. Benefit from what others have written. And above all seek to experience the Triune God by receiving Christ into your being.

God is to be lived. God is to be lived out in a mingled way not just to be worshipped as an external sinless Creator.

"Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works." (John 14:10)

"In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." (John 14:20)

Originally posted by jaywill
twhitehear writes:

[b]===========================================
I came across a mention that Jesus was sinless in another thread and it got me thinking about this thread.
If Jesus was God and sin is acting contrary to Gods will then he was sinless by definition. So saying Jesus was sinless is a virtually meaningless tautology.
===================== ...[text shortened]... l know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." (John 14:20) [/b]

Amen and amen. Those who have the Spirit of God are able to not only discern right from wrong interpretations of the Bible, but to recognize others who also are Spirit indwelt. I know exactly who they are in these forums, and who they are not. They will tell you the same thing. That does not mean that we may agree totally on some minor points. But we DO agree on the vital ones.