Theological Noncognitivism

Originally posted by josephw
Why is what I'm trying to say so difficult for others to understand?

When I say, "God is just", is "God just" because I said so, or is "God just" because He said so?

When I say "God is eternal", is "God eternal" because I said so, or is "God eternal" because He said so?

I choose to believe that God is eternal or just or infinite, or that God is love ...[text shortened]...
Does anyone out there in spirituality forum land understand what I'm saying?

Sure, but you still have to know what those words mean when applied to God. But the claim is often made that God's justness is somehow different, such that we cannot simply assess God's actions as revealed in the Bible to see if they fit what any of us might understand by being just, or acting justly.

Originally posted by vistesd
Sure, but you still have to know what those words mean when applied to God. But the claim is often made that God's justness is somehow different, such that we cannot simply assess God's actions as revealed in the Bible to see if they fit what any of us might understand by being just, or acting justly.

"Sure, but you still have to know what those words mean when applied to God."

Do I? If I live forever, will I ever know what "eternal" means? Maybe, but the question isn't about what the words mean so much as to whom they belong.

"But the claim is often made that God's justness is somehow different, such that we cannot simply assess God's actions as revealed in the Bible to see if they fit what any of us might understand by being just, or acting justly."

What we perceive as just isn't just unless it is defined by the one it belongs to. That idea may seem unjust to you since what is being attempted is to define what just means and then try and make it stick to God, but it won't, because at the root of the delema is the will to define for ones' own self what value or meaning to place on any given thing.

We judge, but we are not the creator of that thing we wish to define.

Vanity and pride clouds our minds and blinds us from seeing the source of the light of all that lives and exists. Instead we over impose our own will on the the whole thing till it looks and acts like what we want it to be, to the extent that we conclude it has no meaning if we fail to recreate the thing in our own image. The truth of it is so simple I look like a fool trying to explain it. 😳

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Sure, but you still have to know what those words mean when applied to God."

Do I? If I live forever, will I ever know what "eternal" means? Maybe, but the question isn't about what the words mean so much as to whom they belong.

"But the claim is often made that God's justness is somehow different, such that we cannot simply assess God's ac ...[text shortened]... own image. The truth of it is so simple I look like a fool trying to explain it. 😳

Thought you might like this:

“Every definition of God leads to heresy; definition is spiritual idolatry. Even attributing mind and will to God, even attributing divinity itself, and the name ‘God’—these, too, are definitions. Were it not for the subtle awareness that all these are just sparkling flashes of that which transcends definition—these, too, would engender heresy. ...

“The greatest impediment to the human spirit results from the fact that the conception of God is fixed in a particular form, due to childish habit and imagination. This is a spark of the defect of idolatry, of which we must always be aware. ...

“The infinite transcends every particular content of faith.”

—Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (former Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Palestine)

Ya vistesd, are you familiar with Rosenzweig's writing on the differential unfolding of God in space-time? I have chanced on his thought via Wolfgang Iser's work on hermeneutics, but am planning to read at least "The Star of Redemption". http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rosenzweig/

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Ya vistesd, are you familiar with Rosenzweig's writing on the differential unfolding of God in space-time? I have chanced on his thought via Wolfgang Iser's work on hermeneutics, but am planning to read at least "The Star of Redemption". http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rosenzweig/

hello, friend. No, but I'm going to look. Thanks. 🙂

EDIT: I read once that his translation, with Buber, of the Hebrew Scriptures into German was (to my recall) several times longer than the original, because they did not want to exclude the multi-vocal meanings embedded in the Hebrew.



EDIT 2: I am currently re-reading Abraham Joshua Heschel’s work of religious philosophy Man Is Not Alone, in which he grounds religion in spontaneous awe or wonder at the ineffable, rather than any deductive or inductive reasoning. The religious response is artistic, and the language of religion is allusive. That’s a very simplistic brief, though. I don’t always agree with Heschel, but his writing is prose at its most poetic—suitable to his project.

EDIT 3: As I skim the section on the Star in SEP, I am reminded of Shimon Shokek’s Kabbalah and the Art of Being: The Smithsonian Lectures, in which he talks about the “theogony” in the movement of ein sof to YHVH (again, this is a very simplistic brief). Shokek’s book is the single best book on theological kabbalah that I have ever read.

Originally posted by vistesd
hello, friend. No, but I'm going to look. Thanks. 🙂

I can send you a digital copy, as well as one of Iser's The Range of Interpretation, which is well worth reading in general (traces the development of interpretation from the midrashic interpretation of the sealed canon through the hermeneutic circle, recursive loops and Rosenzweig's exhilarating travelling differential). 10mb and 2mb respectively.

Originally posted by vistesd
Thought you might like this:

“Every definition of God leads to heresy; definition is spiritual idolatry. Even attributing mind and will to God, even attributing divinity itself, and the name ‘God’—these, too, are definitions. Were it not for the subtle awareness that all these are just sparkling flashes of that which transcends definition—these, too, woul ...[text shortened]... ar content of faith.”

—Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (former Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Palestine)

“Every definition of God leads to heresy;..

Is speaking the truth heresy? If God defines and reveals Himself as Holy, is it then an unholy thing or a heresy to even believe it? Is God a heretic?

Don't take this personally vistesd, but I think only the devil would say that speaking the truth about God is a heresy.

The real heresy is hyper-spirituality, or religion. Same thing. I have no illusions about the nature and character of God due to the fact that what I know about God comes from God through His Word. Simple, plain English even a child can understand.

So then, what is the real debate about? Is it about definitions or the meaning of words or whether one should talk about God? No. The real debate is over the authenticity of the Word of God. If God's Word is not preserved, and all we have are the mere utterances of over zealous religious fanatics and hyper-spiritualized control freaks, then you would have something were with to speak of. But if God's Word is preserved we need to hear it.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I can send you a digital copy, as well as one of Iser's The Range of Interpretation, which is well worth reading in general (traces the development of interpretation from the midrashic interpretation of the sealed canon through the hermeneutic circle, recursive loops and Rosenzweig's exhilarating travelling differential). 10mb and 2mb respectively.

Are they PDF files?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]“Every definition of God leads to heresy;..

Is speaking the truth heresy? If God defines and reveals Himself as Holy, is it then an unholy thing or a heresy to even believe it? Is God a heretic?

Don't take this personally vistesd, but I think only the devil would say that speaking the truth about God is a heresy.

The real heresy is hyper-spi ...[text shortened]... ould have something were with to speak of. But if God's Word is preserved we need to hear it.[/b]

Well, the Jewish understanding of idolatry is very broad. It includes the attempt to reduce God to the concepts we apply to God, even if such concepts are drawn from reading Torah. It includes “graven images” in the mind, as well as in wood or stone. The rabbinical understanding of Torah as “God’s word” means that it cannot be reduced to any exhaustive, one-and-only “right” reading—let alone a literalistic one. Nor does the Hebrew support that. This does not mean no reading can be wrong—just that it cannot be limited the way a bicycle assembly manual might be.

To paraphrase Rabbi Kook, “The Torah transcends any exclusivist interpretation”, and “the infinite transcends the limits of any of the concepts that we might apply”.

Originally posted by vistesd
Are they PDF files?

Yes.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes.

Thanks for the offer, but I think I'll just purchase them: Star is available on Kindle, and The Range of Interpretation is available as an e-book. They are easier for me to read and highlight on my notebook than PDFs (though PDFs are okay on my laptop). I'll read Iser first, I think.

Originally posted by vistesd
Thanks for the offer, but I think I'll just purchase them: Star is available on Kindle, and The Range of Interpretation is available as an e-book. They are easier for me to read and highlight on my notebook than PDFs (though PDFs are okay on my laptop). I'll read Iser first, I think.

Enjoy them.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, the Jewish understanding of idolatry is very broad. It includes the attempt to reduce God to the concepts we apply to God, even if such concepts are drawn from reading Torah. It includes “graven images” in the mind, as well as in wood or stone. The rabbinical understanding of Torah as “God’s word” means that it cannot be reduced to any exhaustive, o ...[text shortened]... pretation”, and “the infinite transcends the limits of any of the concepts that we might apply”.

But what if those concepts we apply to God are the concepts that God applies to Himself?

How does it "reduce God" to say He is eternal?

How can you possibly call it idolatry to say of God that He is God?

I would call it idolatry to set up the concept that it is idolatrous to ascribe to God those qualities and attributes that the "Torah" itself commands that men teach their children and speak of to one another daily.

Seriously vistesd, your Rabbi Kook sounds and looks like a hyperspiritualist. God has spoken, has He not?