I dunno really.  (Hey, at least that's an honest answer).  Words are just concepts.  They can point to God (or other things) but words (of themselves) don't represent truth.  God is something way beyond words and concepts.  God is formless, and having an appreciation of God probably requires another approach than trying to make sense of words.  And there's always the great obstacle of the time, language, culture, context and other differences that the Bible was apparently written from.

I reckon there are plenty of others using our own language in our own time who can point to God more constructively without the cloud of ambiguity that exists with the Bible.  But I do think the Bible and Christianity (without much of the religious nonsense) adds a tremendous amount of dimension to the whole picture!

Dog.

Not really so. You will find that God Himself is IN HIS WORD - not apart from His Word at all !! Jeremiah 1:12 states it very precisely to be so:

" And the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Jeremiah, what do you see?" And I said, "I see an almond branch."  Then the LORD said to me, "You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to perform it." ( English Standard Version).

In the LXX, (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Text), the translated for 'word' as used in this passage is 'logos'. Therefore in the opening verse of of the account of John you find stated "the Logos was God".

God is therefore not apart FROM His Word .. 

Blessings

Eric.

.

Good morning, LBO.

Ok, I just wanted to get a discussion going on this topic, 'What makes you believe the Bible is the Word of God'?.... It's something I've been thinking a lot about lately, and the evidence for divine inspiration seems, at least for me, to be non-existent. I have a few of thoughts on this subject, obviously, but to answer your question adequately requires that I ask a few questions of you first to clarify things. Question number one: what do you understand the Bible to be, ontologically? Question number two: if the Christian God is as Jesus Christ taught, that is, a God who is self-revealing to the pinnacle of his creation, then how would you anticipate that he would reveal himself both 'immediately', and 'mediately'? And last (but by no means least), question number three: what do you understand the words, 'divine inspiration' to imply?

2 Tim 3:16, "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" This phrase, "given by inspiration of God", seems to denote that God was active in giving inspiration, that he was the 'behind the scenes' author of the finished product. This is what I'm questioning. What does 2 Timothy 3:13 claim is the appropriate role for Scripture? Not the verifiability or historicity of Biblical statements, not the idea that the scriptures have been maintained down the ages, not whether Biblical statements can be aligned to how we perceive reality (e.g. the human condition), .... but whether there is evidence that the scriptures were "given by inspiration of God". Indeed.

Any thoughts? Plenty.

Blessings,

Ian

Good morning, Dog.

I dunno really.  (Hey, at least that's an honest answer).  Words are just concepts.  Actually, the 'word/concept' idea is what is known in logic as a 'lexical fallacy'; it implies that meaning (i.e. 'concepts') resides at the lexical ('word') level. But it doesn't. With communication meaning resides at the syntactical level and higher. They can point to God (or other things) but words (of themselves) don't represent truth. God is something way beyond words and concepts. True. But we can describe God using words truly, albeit not exhaustively. God is formless, and having an appreciation of God probably requires another approach than trying to make sense of words. How do you know that God is 'formless' apart from 'words' (i.e. Scripture)? And there's always the great obstacle of the time, language, culture, context and other differences that the Bible was apparently written from. 'Apparently'? I'd suggest that if God revealed himself in time, to a given culture, in a given language, at a given place, then a proper appreciation of context (i.e. historical, cultural, geographical, linguistic, religious, etc) becomes critical in the transferring of meaning from 'then' to 'now', and from 'sense' to 'significance'.

I reckon there are plenty of others using our own language in our own time who can point to God more constructively without the cloud of ambiguity that exists with the Bible. For as long as I've known you you've harped on about the 'ambiguities' that you find in Christian Scripture. And yet, I don't seem to struggle with them, or find things anywhere near as ambiguous as you, apparently do. Further, given that God self-reveals in Scripture, how is it possible for others to 'point to him' apart from such self-revelation? Does such take place in a move from the 'objective' (i.e. what God says of himself in Scripture) to the thoroughly 'subjective' (i.e. what others may opine about him apart from Scripture)? But I do think the Bible and Christianity (without much of the religious nonsense) adds a tremendous amount of dimension to the whole picture! Indeed it does.

Blessings,

Ian

Good afternoon, LBO.

Question number one: what do you understand the Bible to be, ontologically? A collection of books written by man, without God's involvement. And may I ask, how did you arrive at the conclusion that God wasn't involved? On what basis did you predicate this outcome?

Question number two: if the Christian God is as Jesus Christ taught, that is, a God who is self-revealing to the pinnacle of his creation, then how would you anticipate that he would reveal himself both 'immediately', and 'mediately'? What Jesus taught can only be accepted as 'true' in the first place if you hold the underlying premise that the Bible is the Word of God. Why? Jesus' teachings were fully accepted and understood by his followers as being authoritative pronouncements from God well before they were committed to writing. Without this resolved first, what the Bible writes about Jesus is irrelevant, in the same way as what the Qur'an says about Jesus is irrelevant (unless you believe it's from God). How so? Would you necessarily limit the 'reality' of Jesus to simply words in a book? Even if that book is the Christian Bible? The Jesus of the Bible may have taught that God is self-revealing, but this is not evidence that the Bible is the Word of God. Indeed it isn't. The center of the matter is who Jesus claimed to being. If Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, then we should probably heed his confirmation that the Scriptures of his day, that is the Old Testament, recorded God's self-revelation to Israel. In other words, Jesus (God's 'immediate' self-revelation) confirmed Scripture (God's 'mediate' self-revelation). But if Jesus isn't God Incarnate, then we would need to consider what realistic alternatives best enable us to make sense of the data. How would I anticipate that God would reveal himself to mankind... well that all depends on the nature of God... if God is the God of the Bible, then he would reveal himself in the way the Bible describes... if God isn't the God of the Bible, then that question can't be answered. And that really is the crux of the entire problem, isn't it? The answer to the question of what came first and why? God? Or Scripture? But still, you need to first answer the question "is the Bible the Word of God?", before you can believe that God would even reveal himself to us at all. Again, why? If what you surmised earlier is the case then now you are suggesting putting the 'cart' before the 'horse'.

I would offer that the issue that underpins all other issues surrounding this question is the fact of God's self-revelation.

And last (but by no means least), question number three: what do you understand the words, 'divine inspiration' to imply? That God was involved in the writing of the Bible... that God gave inspiration to the authors to write what they wrote.... if he really did do this, then we can accept that the Bible is the word of God and we can trust in its claims and promises. If there's NO evidence that God was involved in the writing of the Bible, then we can't trust its claims and promises, unless of course, by "faith", or "belief".... which, without evidence, is similar to "personal preference". So please define and describe for me what you understand to be meant/implied by the word 'evidence', or 'proof', if you prefer.

Blessings,

Ian

DELETED by Talmid, as I think I was pre-empting Ian

Talmid,

I really wish you hadn't deleted your post, as it approached the issue from the same premise as mine, reaching the same general conclusions, albeit from a slightly different trajectory. I'd very much appreciate you resubmitting it, as mine isn't the only voice that warrants a hearing, here.

Blessings, bro'.

Ian

Hi LBO

This is a "reconstruction" of my deleted post.

"What Jesus taught can only be accepted as 'true' in the first place if you hold the underlying premise that the Bible is the Word of God. Without this resolved first, what the Bible writes about Jesus is irrelevant ..."

I have to disagree with this. I think we can start with a "lower" standard of proof and consider whether the four gospels are historically reliable. I, and eminent classicists such as C.S. Lewis, consider them to meet that standard if one does not assume that there is no "supernatural". (It's worth noting here that even the renowned former-athiest philosopher Antony Flew became a self-professed deist and made professions consistent with theism.) From there one can subject Jesus' statements to logical tests of truth such as self-consistency and checking for valid reasoning. Some of his statements can even be subject to external validation.

Then one can draw conclusions using the balances of probability and faith that one applies when one assumes that the residual current safety switch will kick in if necessary when one flicks the light switch.

Now I confess that, in hindsight, my experience is that God's Spirit seems to be involved in the process at least as far as seeing matters clearly, and then taking the leap to question into the air, "Hey God are you really there? Did you really put on humanity and become Jesus?" But if there was enough evidence to get former athiests like Lewis, or in more recent times Alister McGrath, to consider that the Bible was likely telling the truth about Jesus and Jesus in turn was likely speaking truth, I reckon there's enough evidence for anyone to consider the truth of what the Bible says Jesus taught without having to *start* from the assumption that it is "the Word of God" or even inspired by God.

Good morning, Dog.

We ALL (along with all of creation) are part of Him, IF we stop our silly intellectualising and mental noise for a bit and allow his presence to be known. Are you actually suggesting that 'we', the craeted, are part of God, the Creator?

Blessings,

Ian

Ian,

 

Are you actually suggesting that 'we', the created, are part of God, the Creator?

 

Interesting view, I never saw it that way before. Does being 'born again' have any bearing on it now? 


And does one become a part of him in the new heaven (if elected)?

 

Ralph.

Ralph,

Are you being serious, or are you making a 'tongue-in-cheek' comment hoping to get a 'rise' out of me? The Christian position is that we (the created) are wholly distinct from, and to, God (the Creator).

Blessings,

Ian

Ralph, do try and get this if you can and have a good read Koorong...  that should enlighten your perspective a little.

blessings

Eric

Reply to Didaktikon Ralph, Are you being serious, or are you making a 'tongue-in-cheek' comment hoping to get a 'rise' out of me? The Christian position is that we (the created) are wholly distinct from, and to, God (the Creator). Blessings, Ian

Ian, no I wasn't trying to get a 'rise' out of you, my thoughts were along the lines when Jesus hands back the kingdom after all enemies have been destroyed and all become 'one' with God in spiritual bodies.

Eric,
's ok, I clicked the link. 'Du huh'

Hi Ian,

Well, if we accept that God is omnipresent, and consider that with every single cell and molecule, every electron spinning around, every variety of creature, the entire cosmos, including our bodies requires that his hand is there....

tell me, how could we even exist if not as part of Him?  How could he create something of incredible complexity and then somehow make us separate, and depart, if he is omnipresent?

Every thing consists of God and is basically of his DNA (so to speak)!  The notion of us being individual and separate from others and everything else is a delusion, upheld by the ego.

God is said to be "our Father in heaven".  When I witnessed the miracle of my sons' births, I became intensely aware of our connectedness.  I had received from my parents the DNA that brought my life into being, and I (as their Father) have passed on my DNA to my children.  So I am part of them, and they are part of me.  Why would (and how could) it be different with a Father in heaven?  Does it not say that "the Kingdom is within us"?  Does it not say that the whole of creation will "clap their hands" and "rejoice" etc?...  It's God's 'DNA' in every part of his creation, the life in it all!  I think LBO (in a Cbox chat recently) said something like this, that "God is there holding it all together" or something similar.

Now I have a perspective on this.  It is comfortable and in harmony with what I see in the universe.  You would seem to have another perspective.  But before you carry on attacking anothers' perspective, consider that this comes with no grandiosity or conceitedness.  Really, its when people relax the defense and attachment of their own ego that God's Spirit shines and works through them.


Dog.

 To Doggie:

Check out Romans 8:15,8:23,9:4, Galatians 4:5, Ephesians 1:5.

We are adopted sons, not begotten (like Jesus)... God is our Heavenly Father because He has chosen to adopt us... But Jesus alone is the only begotten of the Father..

Blessings

Eric

'Evening, Dog.

I think you're a well-intentioned bloke, and I like you. But I don't think your current argument has anything in the way of substance underpinning it. Hence although (from my perspective) you've said some pretty daft things over the years, your latest post comes closest to being the dumbest piece of pseudo-theological babble that I've read in a while. I trust that you won't be too offended by the bluntness of my assessment.

Some opening remarks. What you believe appears to be sailing perilously close to one of two errors: the Scylla of Pantheism, or the Charybdis of Panentheism. It's difficult to decide which at this point; I'd really have to hear more of your views before choosing the one mistake over the other. However I can assure you of one thing. Whether 'god in all' or 'god is all', your views ain't biblical or Christian.

Well, if we accept that God is omnipresent, and consider that with every single cell and molecule, every electron spinning around, every variety of creature, the entire cosmos, including our bodies requires that his hand is there....tell me, how could we even exist if not as part of Him? Quite simply. Our existence depends on God; God's existence doesn't depend on us. It's a matter of basic ontology. How could he create something of incredible complexity and then somehow make us separate, and depart, if he is omnipresent? Consider what follows to be a brief summary of 'Logic 101': God is uncreated; we are created. Ipso facto, there remains a clear separation in the quality and type of existence between him, and us (contra a basic premise of Panentheism). Second, God hasn't departed, a fact affirmed by orthodox theology. God continues to sustain the universe, moment by moment. This is so because the universe needs God to exist, but God doesn't need the universe to exist. Ipso facto, there remains a clear separation between the material universe and the Person of God (contra a basic premise of Pantheism). Next, whatever you might understand to be intended by the theological term 'omnipresent', it clearly parts company with how theologians throughout history have properly understood the term. To us, omnipresence is an attribute of Deity. Logically, if we are 'a part of what God is', then we automatically have a share in his 'Godhood', and hence in his attributes. So I really must ask, are you 'omnipresent', Dog?

Every thing consists of God and is basically of his DNA (so to speak)! I trust you'll excuse me, but that's just plain sloppy thinking. It's also wrong, obviously. Scripture clearly relates that God created the material universe 'out of nothing' (i.e. ex nihilo), hence the material universe remains separate from, and distinct to, God. The notion of us being individual and separate from others and everything else is a delusion, upheld by the ego. Piffle and nonsense. The unity of the Created Order (and with it notions of separability) is distinct in content, form, purpose and process from the unity of the perichoretic Godhead. Further, before assuming that to disagree with your position is a sure sign of 'delusion', or of the elevation of the 'ego', you might try cultivating a modicum of sophistication in basic philosophical reasoning and logic. I commend this to you as it's remarkably easy to manouever entire Carrier Groups around the logical flaws in your current argument.
 
God is said to be "our Father in heaven".  When I witnessed the miracle of my sons' births, I became intensely aware of our connectedness.  I had received from my parents the DNA that brought my life into being, and I (as their Father) have passed on my DNA to my children.  So I am part of them, and they are part of me. Really? Could you please explain to me how you could be a part of your kids, when the DNA that you passed to them left your body to, in part, form theirs? Organic reproduction doesn't involving cloning, as you know, hence what results with offspring is a distinction in both person and identity. Whilst it's true that your children share elements of your genetic makeup, such doesn't work in reverse (unless one of them donates a kidney to you). Why would (and how could) it be different with a Father in heaven? Quite simply. Biological 'fatherhood' is different materially and functionally from God's non-biological fatherhood. Our 'sonship' results from being adopted into his family, rather than being begotten into it. Does it not say that "the Kingdom is within us"? You're kidding, right? Does it not say that the whole of creation will "clap their hands" and "rejoice" etc?... Hmmm. Clearly you're not kidding! Ever heard of c-o-n-t-e-x-t, Dog? It's God's 'DNA' in every part of his creation, the life in it all! Bollocks.

Now I have a perspective on this. It is comfortable and in harmony with what I see in the universe. I've no doubt that it is. But who says that how you perceive the universe is anywhere near being correct? Or even consistent, for that matter? You would seem to have another perspective. Of course I do. Mine is a perspective that is logically and philsophically consistent (and robust), and completely biblical to boot. But before you carry on attacking anothers' perspective, consider that this comes with no grandiosity or conceitedness. Of course. I don't for one moment believe that your views result from feelings of grandiosity of conceitedness. I put them down to basic philosophical naivete and biblical ignorance, nothing more. Hence it's your argument that I'm attacking, and not your person (I can distinguish between the two, you see). Really, its when people relax the defense and attachment of their own ego that God's Spirit shines and works through them. Such a concept might 'work' in the imagination of someone like Eckhart Tolle, but when evaluated against something a little more tangible, say Scripture, it falls well short of the mark. According to the Bible it's more the case that when people align themselves to God's will and purposes, that his Spirit 'shines' and 'works' through them.

Nice try, 'fail'.

Blessings,

Ian

Hey Dog.

I was going to post some comments on some of the implications of pantheism vs the Christian worldview, but found this possibly relevant excerpt from a fantastic book from 1908 - "Orthodoxy" by G.K.Chesterton. The whole chapter that this comes from contains a lighthearted but serious comparison of pantheistic and christian approaches to ontology. (It's chap. 8 - The Romance of Orthodoxy - available legally for $0.00 from gutenberg.net)

Funnily enough, I think it would be in complete agreement with Ian's previous outline of the Christian idea of createdness ;)

 

...A short time ago Mrs. Besant, in an interesting essay, announced that
there was only one religion in the world, that all faiths were only
versions or perversions of it, and that she was quite prepared to say
what it was. According to Mrs. Besant this universal Church is simply
the universal self. It is the doctrine that we are really all one
person; that there are no real walls of individuality between man and
man. If I may put it so, she does not tell us to love our neighbours;
she tells us to be our neighbours. That is Mrs. Besant's thoughtful and
suggestive description of the religion in which all men must find
themselves in agreement. And I never heard of any suggestion in my life
with which I more violently disagree. I want to love my neighbour not
because he is I, but precisely because he is not I. I want to adore the
world, not as one likes a looking-glass, because it is one's self, but
as one loves a woman, because she is entirely different. If souls are
separate love is possible. If souls are united love is obviously
impossible. A man may be said loosely to love himself, but he can hardly
fall in love with himself, or, if he does, it must be a monotonous
courtship. If the world is full of real selves, they can be really
unselfish selves. But upon Mrs. Besant's principle the whole cosmos is
only one enormously selfish person.....

etc etc

There's tonnes of stuff in the whole chapter, if you can suffer his swashbuckling and unstoppable "sense of humour". It might shed some light on common Christian responses to philosophies such as Tolle's.

Sin Tax Error

G'day, STE.

Chesterton was an outstanding author (I rate his 'Father Brown' series very highly). A fact not widely known is that he was also the 'cause' for C.S. Lewis ultimately rejecting atheism, to eventually embrace orthodox Christianity.

If Chesterton's style might be thought of as 'swashbuckling', how would you describe my own?!

Blessings, bro'.

Ian

Gday Ian.

Yep, Chesterton is great, and also a fun puzzle to read because of his unusual style where you have to read between the lines of all the puns and wordplay to get to the serious reasoning. Have you read any of his religious writing? I'm reading St Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox at the moment. Also a plus, most of his works are available free on the net...can't complain about that.

As for your style (here on the forum), I'd describe it as "caustic soda" ;) Painful if you get it in your eyes, but very helpful for dissolving calcified accretions :D

Gotta run..
STE

G'day, STE.

Yep, Chesterton is great, and also a fun puzzle to read because of his unusual style where you have to read between the lines of all the puns and wordplay to get to the serious reasoning. Have you read any of his religious writing? Only a few. I've read his Orthodoxy and his Heresy, of course, and I've browsed through others. But I suppose my favourite among his religious works would have to be, The Everlasting Man. I'm reading St Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox at the moment. Also a plus, most of his works are available free on the net...can't complain about that. Ninety years of royalties paid, but then works enter the Public Domain!

As for your style (here on the forum), I'd describe it as "caustic soda" ;) Painful if you get it in your eyes, but very helpful for dissolving calcified accretions :D  Ha, ha, ha. Fair call.

Blessings, bro'.

Ian