Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Working Definition of God
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 16 of 332 (200221)
04-18-2005 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dan Carroll
04-18-2005 3:52 PM


Dan's Clever Alias writes:
Well, for starters, let's lop off what he does/what he did.
But you can't lop off what he does/what he did without losing the very characterstics that define him. It is impossible to separate his actions from what he is because what he is has been displayed by what he does.
Do people not know you by your own actions? Do not actions speak louder than words?
For example, you said:
Dan's Clever Alias writes:
We're left with:
God is beginningless and endless uncreated invisible Spirit, Mind, without physicality, pure consciousness, a Who not an It, a Who that pervades all things but is not all things.
Which would also adequately describe the Shadow King, sworn enemy of Prof. Charles Xavier. Perhaps we can narrow the field a bit more?
That's because you've started with the assumption that you cannot include what he does/what he did.
However, since I agree that God the Father cannot be seen directly by any of us, I will interject that we need Christ to preceive the Father by -- and that this perception comes by Holy Spirit.
When looking for God by the Holy Spirit you see that Christ is the visible image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
You also see that by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
You also see that he is before all things, and in him all things hold together -- that he is the head of the body, the church; that he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
Finally, you also see that God the Father was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
But, of course, if you're not viewing him by the Holy Spirit, then you're basically left with the Shadow King -- which doesn't say much of anything.
But it is still an interesting thought.
If you're looking for a simple answer, I simply say that, "God is love."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-18-2005 3:52 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by mark24, posted 04-19-2005 11:39 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 74 by gnojek, posted 04-19-2005 2:40 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 76 of 332 (200424)
04-19-2005 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dan Carroll
04-19-2005 9:33 AM


Re: Dans clever creation
Dan's Clever Alias writes:
I know it might sound like I'm being a smart-ass here, but I'm actually trying to pay a great deal of respect to the claim of existence of God.
Specifically, I'm stitting down and saying, "Okay, you say this 'God' thing exists. I'll take an inquiry into that seriously... so let's start with the basics. What are you telling me exists?"
oh.
Then why do you say things like this when we offer you an honest answer when we say God is love?
Dan's Clever Alias writes:
God is Eliza Dushku? I knew it.
As others have noted, she plays nasty so amazingly well it is almost scary. Plus, in connecting "God is love" with any roles that Eliza Dushku has played, are you not equating God with a person?
D'sCA writes:
Imagine we walked into a room, and found a dead body. There's nothing on the body to indicate how it died. I turn to you and say, "We're looking for the person or thing that killed this man. I know what it is, and it's in this room."
You say to me, "Well, what is it?"
I respond, "It killed that man."
Wouldn't you blink a couple times, and say, "Yes, you just said that. What is it?"
Maybe.
Or, if you are certain that a person is involved we might ask, "Is it a killer?" If you are sure that natural causes that resulted in the person's death, then we might ask, "Was it simply natural causes?" If you suspect both (and we are not sure which), then we might ask, "Was it a killer or natural causes?"
But to answer your question, if you're looking for a raw definition of God, I would probably answer, "God is spirit."
This answer, of course, would most likely be pursued with other questions -- which, with further clarification, would most likely mean that it would point to Christ (from a Juedo-Christian perspective).
Depending on the nature of the further inquiry, one might even be able to determine if their inquiry was genuine or simply trolling.
For example, if the answer "God is spirit." were then retorted with something intergalactically stupid like, "Great. God is a ghost...I knew it." or something else similar like this, I would most likely conclude that their inquiry is actually a sarcasm meant to poke holes in other peoples faith systems. And I wouldn't really waste my time bothering to explain it to them anymore from there.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-19-2005 01:45 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-19-2005 01:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-19-2005 9:33 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-19-2005 2:53 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 81 of 332 (200431)
04-19-2005 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by gnojek
04-19-2005 2:40 PM


Re: Sure, I'll join the fun late
gnojek writes:
Unless all this was tongue in cheek, I see why you call yourself the devolver, since your post devolved very quickly into nonsense.
That's a personal attack qnojek. Please don't do that again.
Looking past the symbolic language, I think my point remains clear: God is the spiritual substrate upon which all else hinges. Like a wind that moves a sail, God's spirt upholds all creation. This means that God is sepatate from creation but yet can be deeply manifested within it and felt at specific points where he contact his creation. Because of God, all things exist -- without God, nothing would exist.
In speaking of an "image" -- your modern definition of it does not capture the early Judeo-Christian defintion of it. It simply means that Christ as Son of God is the very pre-emeninant expresion of the Father's will in his creation.
And furthermore, "first born" does not imply created or even born in the sense that we picture it within the biological sciences. Firstborn again reflects a pre-eminence in rank more than to priority in time. This can be shown in passages where the term 'firstborn' is used of the pre-eminent son who was not the eldest, e.g. Psalm 89:27, where David is called 'firstborn' although he was actually the youngest son.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-19-2005 02:09 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by gnojek, posted 04-19-2005 2:40 PM gnojek has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by mikehager, posted 04-19-2005 6:15 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 89 of 332 (200498)
04-19-2005 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Dan Carroll
04-19-2005 2:53 PM


Re: Dans clever creation
MD writes:
Then why do you say things like this when we offer you an honest answer when we say God is love?
DCA writes:
Because, as I said elsewhere, that's so vague an answer as to be meaningless.
It's not meaningless to descibe something as being love. Love has a wide variety of meanings and definitions -- it's just that love has so many meanings that further questions need to be asked to refine the concept more.
When I speak of love, I'm speaking of a divine love that is willing to sacrifice itself in order that others may live.
MD writes:
As others have noted, she plays nasty so amazingly well it is almost scary.
DCA writes:
Got'cher back on that count, my good fellow.
MD writes:
Plus, in connecting "God is love" with any roles that Eliza Dushku has played, are you not equating God with a person?
DCA writes:
Apparently. Perhaps it's too vague a definition if includes Eliza Dushku?
But I'm not offended if that's what the word love evokes for you in a physical sense. I think she's quite beautiful myself.
But the point is: If one continues to request a simple definition of God without reference to people, then others may be confused when the one who requests these simple definitions always by default takes their defintion and proceeds to compare it to actual or fictional people.
In addition to this, I would never devalue anyone faith's system. If, for example, you actually did worship Eliza Dushku as some form of divinity just like I worshipped Jesus as God, I wouldn't necessarilly say you were outright wrong. Instead, I'd try to find some common ground for which to engage a dialogue to contrast your beliefs with my beliefs in order to see what we had in common.
Even the example of the Shadow King from the X-men wouldn't necessarilly be a bad place to start on a purely philosophical level. St. Paul certainly didn't seem to mind starting from a vaque perception of God when dialoging with others.
For example, when he came across a certain inscription in Athens, he stated the follwoing as recorded in Acts:
Acts 17:22-24 NIV writes:
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
MD writes:
Or, if you are certain that a person is involved we might ask, "Is it a killer?" If you are sure that natural causes that resulted in the person's death, then we might ask, "Was it simply natural causes?" If you suspect both (and we are not sure which), then we might ask, "Was it a killer or natural causes?"
DCA writes:
And if I were to respond, "It killed that man" again, wouldn't it become a bit maddening dealing with me? Might you even respond by deciding that I was talking out my ass when I said I knew what killed him?
I could certainly see that if you are looking for a solidly material reason for his death. But we have at least establshed two different possibilities to proceed forward into inquiry.
MD writes:
But to answer your question, if you're looking for a raw definition of God, I would probably answer, "God is spirit."
DCA writes:
Well what's that?
Well...I suppose when one looks on the most rational and logical physical level, when one talks about a spirit they are usually refering to a mood or inspiration or even mentality that one operate in.
For example, some would see this as the general atmosphere of a place or situation and the effect that it has on people; "the feel of the city excited him"; "a clergyman improved the tone of the meeting"; "it had the smell of treason"
Others might see it as a fundamental emotional and activating principle determining one's character.
Still others might state that a spirit is an emotional state: the state of a person's emotions (especially with regard to pleasure or dejection); "his emotional state depended on her opinion"; "he was in good spirits"; "his spirit rose".
MD writes:
This answer, of course, would most likely be pursued with other questions -- which, with further clarification, would most likely mean that it would point to Christ (from a Juedo-Christian perspective).
DCA writes:
Well, that's considerably more specific. But all I know about Christ is that he's a human who performed super-human feats and spoke a lot about morality. Presumably there's something about God that makes him different from an Israeli Spiderman. So shall we keep refining?
No problem.
Based on a reply I gave above, by Judeo-Christian definition, God is the spiritual substrate upon which all else hinges. Unlike a simple principle, however, God is sentient, holy and self-sacrificing love. I suppose the concept of the Logos, as re-defined within Christian theology, could deifinitely be applicable here.
Similarly, like a wind that moves a sail, God's spirt upholds all creation. This means that God is sepatate from creation but yet can be deeply manifested within it and felt at specific points where he contacts his creation.
Because of God, all things exist -- without God, nothing would exist.
Coming back to the initial discussion:
MD writes:
For example, if the answer "God is spirit." were then retorted with something intergalactically stupid like, "Great. God is a ghost...I knew it." or something else similar like this, I would most likely conclude that their inquiry is actually a sarcasm meant to poke holes in other peoples faith systems. And I wouldn't really waste my time bothering to explain it to them anymore from there.
DCA writes:
Well, I'm terribly sorry about that. But if the definition you offer is vague enough that it could describe a ghost, then that's hardly my fault.
Yes. But you were the one who asked the question.
If I were lost in a city and stopped to ask someone for directions, they might reply, "You need to go that way." or "You need to go North."
If I were then to reply with something like, "Great! Now I can find my way to Santa Clause's home and visit his reindeer!" -- then I would probably be deserving their anger.
Their anger would be even more deserved if they were in the process of refining these directions more clearly so that I could understand their inital "simple" statement more clearly.
They would probably even conclude that they were not really interested in finding any directions in the first place and that they were not really lost at all -- or that they enjoyed being lost and bugging others for directions that they never intended on listening to in the first place.
Kind of like a prank phone-call from the Jerky Boys.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-19-2005 05:36 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-19-2005 06:04 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-19-2005 06:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-19-2005 2:53 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-20-2005 10:04 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 92 of 332 (200517)
04-19-2005 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by jar
04-19-2005 7:02 PM


Re: To Whom are you asking this question?
jar, I'm not going to get into the debates of the actual facts until I do more research. However, Richard Hooker demonstrates some interesting information as to why it would be reasonable to conclude that the Hebrews really did dwell around these parts around this time in history:
quote:
We can make some guesses about the Hebrews in Egypt, though. It isn't unreasonable to believe that a sizable Hebrew population lived in the north of Egypt from about 1500-1250 BC; enormous numbers of tribal groups, most of them Semitic, had been settling in northern Egypt from about 1800 BC. These foreigners had grown so powerful that for a short time they dominated Egypt, ruling the Egyptians themselves; this period is called the Third Intermediate Period in Egyptian history. When the Egyptians reasserted dominance over Egypt at the start of the New Kingdom, they actively expelled as many foreigners as they could. Life got fairly harsh for these foreigners, who were called "habiru," which was applied to landless aliens (taken from the word, "apiru," or foreigner). Is this where the Hebrews got their name? It's a hotly contested issue. Nevertheless, the New Kingdom kings also began to garrison their borders in the north and east in order to prevent foreigners from entering the country in the first place. In particular, the Egyptian king, Seti I (1305-1290), moved his capital to Avaris at the very north of the Nile delta. This move was a shrewd move, for it established a powerful military presence right at the entrance to Egypt.
Garrisoned cities, however, don't pop into existence at a whim; they are labor intensive affairs. Typically, building projects involved heavy taxation of local populations; these taxes took the form of labor taxes. It isn't unreasonable to guess that the heaviest burden of these taxes fell on the foreigners living in the area, which would include the Hebrews. As best as we can guess, we believe that these building projects form the substance of the oppression of the Hebrews described in Exodus.
Incidently, just off the top of my head, archeologists digging up settlements from ancient Egypt have unearthed three kinds of sun-dried bricks -- some were made of good straw, some containing mere roots and bits of straw, and some with no straw -- apparently confirming the Scriptural account of slave labour found in Exodus 5:10 and following:
quote:
Then the slave drivers and the foremen went out and said to the people, "This is what Pharaoh says: 'I will not give you any more straw. Go and get your own straw wherever you can find it, but your work will not be reduced at all.' " So the people scattered all over Egypt to gather stubble to use for straw. The slave drivers kept pressing them, saying, "Complete the work required of you for each day, just as when you had straw." The Israelite foremen appointed by Pharaoh's slave drivers were beaten and were asked, "Why didn't you meet your quota of bricks yesterday or today, as before?"
Then the Israelite foremen went and appealed to Pharaoh: "Why have you treated your servants this way? Your servants are given no straw, yet we are told, 'Make bricks!' Your servants are being beaten, but the fault is with your own people."
Pharaoh said, "Lazy, that's what you are-lazy! That is why you keep saying, 'Let us go and sacrifice to the LORD .' Now get to work. You will not be given any straw, yet you must produce your full quota of bricks."
Exodus 5:10-18
Consequently, now with further research, I might add that lack of evidence does not necessarilly imply that they were not there. This is certainly the case with Akhenaten -- a Pharoah of Egypt --who was nearly wiped of the history books within mere generations of his own rule. In fact, many scholars will admit that we know more about him today than thoese generations that immediately preceeded his own.
quote:
Akhenaten
We know both little and much about Akhenatenthat is to say, we know enough to wish we knew much more with certaintybut at least the general contours of his biography are clear. Born Amunhotep (IV), Akhenaten ruled Egypt for a mere fourteen years (ca. 1352-1338 BCE), a relatively short reign by the standards of the day. While there is no record of his death nor have any material remains from his burial as yet come to light, it is safe to assume he died in middle age. The cause of his death is not known.
The unique and peculiar phase of Egyptian history he engineered is known today as the Amarna periodthe modern Egyptian village of El-Amarna lies near the site that was once Akhenaten's capital cityalthough the Amarna Period extends beyond his reign. It includes not only Akhenaten's regency but several of his successors': Smenkhare (1338-1336 BCE) about whom next to nothing is known; Tutankhuaten (later, Tutankhamun, 1336-1327 BCE) whose current notoriety since the discovery of his tomb in the 1920's far outstrips the boy-king's fame in antiquity; and finally Ay (1327-1323 BCE). By the time the next series of pharaohs held the throneHoremheb (1323-1295 BCE) and the Ramessids, a dynasty which included the famous Ramses IIAmarna had been abandoned and destroyed, along with the memory of Akhenaten's religion in the general conscience of the ancient Egyptian public. This deliberate attempt to eradicate all reference in the Egyptian record to the Amarna period was nearly successful, but not quite.
We do know about Akhenaten, in fact, probably quite a bit more than the ancient Egyptians did who lived even just a few generations after the monotheist's rule. In spite of the fact that there is virtually no reference in later Egyptian historical records to Akhenaten's existence, or his immediate successors'it's hard to find even hints of his religion in subsequent Egyptian culturearchaeology has brought Amarna culture back to light with astounding clarity and depth. As with Pompeii, because of its near-total obliteration more is now known about Akhenaten's regime than almost any other period during the New Kingdom of Egypt, a fact Ramses would, no doubt, not be very happy to hear.
Incidently, when one opens the Hebrew Scriptures to Psalm 104, the great manifesto of God's all-encompassing power, and read how God created grass for cattle to eat, and trees for birds to nest in, and the sea for ships to sail and fish to swim in:
quote:
Bless the Lord....you who coverest thyself with light as with a garment....
Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters;....
He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and....the trees
Where the birds make their nests; as for the stork, the fir trees are her house.
The high hills are a refuge for the wild goats;....
(As) the sun ariseth, (the beasts) gather themselves together....
There go the ships: there is that leviathan (whale), whom thou hast made to play therein.
And then among the remains of Amarna culture you find the Hymn to the Aten, purportedly written by Akhenaten himself, and it says:
quote:
When the land grows bright and you are risen from the Akhet (horizon) and shining in the sun-disk by day,....
All flocks (are) at rest on their grasses, trees and grasses flourishing;
Birds flown from their nest, their wings in adoration of your life-force;
All flocks prancing on foot, all that fly and alight living as you rise for them;
Ships going downstream and upstream too, every road open at your appearance;
Fish on the river leaping to your face, your rays even inside the sea. (trans. James P. Allen)
The similarity is simply astounding. It seems incontrovertible that cultural exchange from Egypt to Israel or Israel to Egypt transpired somehow. Even though most historians would conclude that Israel borrowed from Egypt, it yet remains fairly evident that there were at least some points of contact between the Israel culture and the Egyptian culture -- and around the same time that most scholars suspect that the account of the Exodus emerged in history at that.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-19-2005 06:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 04-19-2005 7:02 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 04-19-2005 7:37 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 95 of 332 (200526)
04-19-2005 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by jar
04-19-2005 7:37 PM


Re: To Whom are you asking this question?
What about the reference to the foreign 'habiru' noted in the quote:
quote:
When the Egyptians reasserted dominance over Egypt at the start of the New Kingdom, they actively expelled as many foreigners as they could. Life got fairly harsh for these foreigners, who were called "habiru," which was applied to landless aliens (taken from the word, "apiru," or foreigner). Is this where the Hebrews got their name?
The author noted that it's a hotly contested issue, however, this name "habiru" seems to be very similar to the "Hebrew" name -- and it's not entirely out of the scope of the discussion to note that language changes over time.
Even Moses' name was actually an Egyptian name before it was converted into the Hebrew language. This is to saym his name changed from the original Egyptian as it was not originally a Hebrew name.
I'm not saying this is definite evidence. However, it's not entirely outside the scope of a reasonable possibility either.
I will research the issue of the bricks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 04-19-2005 7:37 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 04-19-2005 8:24 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 101 of 332 (200565)
04-19-2005 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by jar
04-19-2005 8:24 PM


Re: To Whom are you asking this question?
jar writes:
Actually that's some of the strongest evidence that the Exodus and conquest of Canaan never happened.
If you mean that it disproves that the 'habiru' term applied solely and distinctly to the Hebrew descendents of the Abram (later Abraham) -- then I wholeheartedly agree.
However, that's not what I'm suggesting.
jar writes:
There was no one people called the Hibiru, but instead it was a somewhat derogotry name used similar to "gypsy" to refer to homeless wanderers and brigands. They don't seem to have any one ethnicity and certainly no organization or structure. And they are discussed over many, many centuries in locations from Egypt in the south to the upper reaches of Mesopotamia. It was term common to Egypt, Sumeria, Akaadian, Hittite and Mittani civilizations.
Exactly.
jar writes:
They were often hired as mercenaries and get discussed quite often in the Amarna letters.
The Amarna letters are important; they were written at about the time Joshua was supposedly conquering Canaan. Sadly, none of the heads of the city states there seemed to notice, even those ruling cities he had supposedly destroyed. But the Hapiru are mentioned. They were being hired by the different heads of the City-States in a series of inter-city wars that were going on at the time. Sometimes they are on one side, often then on the other. But nowhere are they seen or shown as a unified, organized or even particular nation.
And that's exactly my point.
I'm not trying to suggest that the 'habiru' was unique to Abraham and his descendants. I'm suggesting, provided the names can genuinely be traced to one another, that the term 'habiru' was adopted from the broader Egyptian culture by Abraham's descendants and made into a distinctly Hebrew feature probably sometime aroud Moses.
I've already noted how words can change as they are transformed into new languages -- even those languages that are very similar.
Even more so, as I already noted above, Abram changed his name to Abraham as a sign in and of itself to God's calling.
Likewise Moses' original name was most likely Egyptian. When the name Mose appears by itself, as it occasionally does in Egyptian, it simply means "the Child" or "the Offspring." But in Egyptian, Mose most frequently appears along with the name of a god as part of a compound name.
Moses' Hebrew name was Moshe, the true meaning of which is now unknown.
Some relate the name to the Hebrew word mashah, which means "drawn out" a reference to the story of his having been drawn out of the water where his mother had placed him in a reed basket to save him from the death that had been decreed by the Pharaoh against the firstborn of all of the children of Israel in Egypt. This is found in the Hebrews Scriptures of Exodus 2:10.
One Jewish source, however, says that the name he was given by by the daughter of the Pharaoh was Miniot, which meant "taken out" in Egyptian, and that Moshe was a translation of this Egyptian name into Hebrew.
Some have seen in this story a parallel with the story of Sargon of Assyria who was also said to have been drawn from the water as an infant:
quote:
Sargon, strong king, king of Agade, am I. My mother was a high priestess, my father I do not know. My paternal kin inhabit the mountain region. My city (of birth) is Azupiranu, which lies on the bank of the Euphrates. My mother, a high priestess, conceived me, in secret she bore me. She placed me in a reed basket, with bitumen she caulked my hatch. She abandoned me to the river from which I could not escape. The river carried me along: to Aqqi, the water drawer, it brought me. Aqqi, the water drawer, when immersing his bucket lifted me up. Aqqi, the water drawer, raised me as his adopted son. Aqqi, the water drawer, set me to his garden work. During my garden work, Istar loved me (so that) 55 years I ruled as king. (Lewis, 1978)
Alternatively, as I began to note above, some authorities have pointed to the fact that Exodus 2:10 says that Pharaoh's daughter "made him her son," as a possible reference to another source for his name.
During the eighteenth dynasy of Egypt, the suffix -mose was a common element in names and meant "son of." This Egyptian naming convention is illustrated in names from the period such as Thut-mose ("son of Toth") and Ra-moses ("son of Ra"). According to this view, the name Moshe would simply be a transliteration into Hebrew of a longer Egyptian name that ended in -mose.
Suffice it to say, if any of these things are true, then a link with Egyptian culture again seems to be implied.
Regardless of how Moses actually acquired his name, it should be noted that many times in the Scriptures names are changed or adopted in order to signify a great change has occurrd. Examples of this could even include Saul of Tarsus changing his name to Paul.
Likewise, regardless of his orginal name, Moses was eventually known as Moshe within the Hebrew language itself.
Interestingly enough, the name 'Hebrew' itself seems to be partially influenced by the word 'eber' which seems to litterally mean something akin to 'beyond, on the other side'.
However, when one looks at the Semitic language itself, the term Hebrew can more readilly be traced from the Semitic word 'habiru' -- which clearly means 'wanderer' in the derogatory sense.
As Dr. Orville Boyd Jenkins notes, Abraham may have been part of a broader movement of "habiru" migrating or nomadic peoples referred to in various contemporary sources.
Now some may hold that the term 'habiru' was solely distinct to Abraham's descendants and eventually was changed over time to the 'Hebrew' we see today -- but I don't think the current body of evidence supports this conclusion.
However, if one see this 'habiru' derogatory name as being part of the broader Egyptian culture -- and that it was adopted and transformed by the descendents of Abrham during Moses' time into the elevated 'Hebrew' we are familar with today, then I still think this link still holds much promise.
In one sense, it certainly jives with one of the central messages of the gospel in the sense that, although he can certainly do so, God generally does not call the wise:
I Corinthians 1:26-29 NIV writes:
Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things -- and the things that are not -- to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.
Consequently God calling a desert wanderer from amongst a group of migrating or nomadic peoples (as referred to in various contemporary sources) in order to shame the powers-that-be seems to fit exactly in line with his modus operandi -- his unvarying or habitual method of procedure.
In I Peter 2:15, we see a similar concept being expressed when he says, "For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men."
Indeed, Christ's death on the cross is itself seen within this very same context -- foolish by the standards of the world.
Although some would disagree, many Christians do beleive that these ideas are expressed as well within the Hebrew Scriptures. Even more so, although there is some debate as to exactly whom this passage is directed at, the following Hebrew Scriptures definitely can be identified with God chosing the lowly in order to shame the wise:
Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant writes:
Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.
As many were astonished at him his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the sons of men so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they shall see, and that which they have not heard they shall understand.
Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand; he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
That many Christians identify this passage as being a prophecy in regards to Christ's suffering in order to redeem us is a given.
However, for the sake of this discussion in regards to the 'habiru' link, I think it might be overlooking the more important fact that many modern day Israelites more readilly identify this passage with their own Hebrew people throughout the course of human history -- which speaks volumes in itself about God's modus operandi.
jar writes:
You can read the Amarna Letters here.
Thank you.
But, in doing this, I'm not sure if you've necessarilly disproved anything that I've suggested here. We both agree that 'habiru' -- if indeed there is a link to 'Hebrew' -- was almost certainly not a name which was distinct to Abraham's descendents alone.
In fact, if I'm reading this correctly, your link seems to reinforce what I was already suggesting. At the very least, the body of evidence certainly seem to leave open the possibilty of the term 'habiru' being adopted from the broader Egyptian culture by Abraham's descendants -- and made into a distinctly Hebrew feature probably sometime aroud Moses.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-20-2005 05:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 04-19-2005 8:24 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 04-19-2005 10:48 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 103 of 332 (200567)
04-19-2005 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by jar
04-19-2005 10:48 PM


Re: To Whom are you asking this question?
meh -- not interested. Though if someone else wants to start a new topic for this OP discussion, I'll probably partake in it.
I've been side-tracked by this thread anyway. I'm going to be posting back to the pseudo-science discusion I started before.
Take care Dan's Clever Alias. Hope you find whatever answers you're looking for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 04-19-2005 10:48 PM jar has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 111 of 332 (200647)
04-20-2005 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Mammuthus
04-20-2005 3:19 AM


Whoa. hold on there. You ignored my input in Message 89.
Besides, Dan's Clever Alias isn't asking for "evidence". He's asking for a basic "definition" of God to start his inquiry from.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-20-2005 05:39 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Mammuthus, posted 04-20-2005 3:19 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Mammuthus, posted 04-20-2005 7:18 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 139 of 332 (200728)
04-20-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Mammuthus
04-20-2005 7:18 AM


Mammuthus writes:
That is why I did not lump you in with Faith or mike since you at least seemed to be attempting to seriously address Dan's question.
ah...I see. Thank you.
Just to be fair, I think Faith and Matthew make very valid points that I, from my own perspective of "faith", would agree with.
But, to be fair to Dan's Clever Alias' initial question, we need to first present a basic working definition of God -- like a spirutal matrix or over-arching pattern which DCA can then compare and contrast against the claims of the evidence within nature that supposedly point toward God's existence.
Mammuthus writes:
However, you started to work on a definition of god as love, then what kind of love and then stopped. Could you continue to refine what you mean to provide a working definition of god as love?
Sure. I'll offer my own thoughts on the matter. I'll admit ahead of time that it will probably be lacking in many areas -- probably distorted too -- but I'll try my best to submit to the Spirit in order to present a basic concise definition that others can then examine against the backdrop of nature.
I started before saying that God is love. But, to be more precise, it seems to me that God is actually the substance of that which is good (and that evil is the absense of God) -- or, stating it in the negative, that God is the absense of evil.
I'd also mentioned before, in conjuntion with the God is love thought, that God was also spirit -- spirit in the sense of an "inspiration" that has a very tangible exitence beyond the material world -- but that could also manifest periodically and even be felt at the points were he contacts his creation.
In order to see an example of this within the real world, look to the very theoretical nature of mathematics itself. Many will tell you that mathematics exists independantly of reality -- they realise that pure maths exists independently of the observable universe.
As one person once noted it:
quote:
Pure maths deals with the properties of mathematical concepts defined without reference to the physical world. Applied maths is the (well) application of these ideas to analyse the behaviour of the universe by modelling physical objects and concepts in mathematical terms. We do this because it lets us use the rules of mathematical logic to draw conclusions from our observations. So mathematics itself exists independently of the physical universe, but is nonetheless a very useful tool for trying to understand how it works.
It think that, just as many will tell you that mathematics exists independantly of reality (they realise that pure maths exists independently of the observable universe) -- that God too exists independantly of reality (they realise that a pure Spirit exists independently of the observable universe).
It is interesting to note that some savant autistic children display an almost intuitive knowledge of mathematics without being taught the structures and logistics of the math involved. Some of them even have difficulty perceiving the world around them -- their senses are tremendously broken -- and yet still seem to comprehend mathematical complexities is great detail. Note: I'm talking about the rare severely savant autistics -- like the one portrayed by Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man.
Nonetheless, perhaps God's prophets are like autistic savants that some whacky connection to God by the Holy Spirit -- to the point that they can actually see things around them that us "normal people" do not see.
Consequently, I do beleive that "mentally handicapped children" are much closer to God than I am. They see the word from a unique vantage point, often not even able to grasp why someone would want to hurt others or steal or lie.
I guess the Greek concept of the Logos could also be invoked here as well. In this sense, the Logos is believed to be the Supreme Will undergirding all of creation, the reason for all existence.
The word Logos is the Greek term used in Christian theology to designate the Word of God -- the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. It should be noted that before St. John consecrated this term, various Greek philosophers and commentators within Judaism used it to express religious conceptions. For example, the term appears within Stoic thinking within the context of the demiurge. The Old Testament, from which the New Testament is derived, also represents the "creative act" as the word of God (sometimes it seems to attribute to the word action of itself, although not independent of God).
While these previous concepts, under various titles, have exercised certain strong influences on Christian theology, the Word of God analogy should not be limited simply to the word spoken by the lips. It rather applies to the interior speech of the soul, whereby we may in some measure grasp the Divine mystery. Engendered by the mind it remains therein, is equal thereto, and is the source of its operations.
At the same time, the Logos is the hyperspatial substrate upon which all else hinges, a living force and a breathing law. As a force, it is irresistible and bears along the entire world and all creatures to a common end. As a law it is holy and inevitable, something from which nothing can withdraw itself. When combined, it is someone which every reasonable being should willingly follow. He is divine and alive.
In other words, at least within my own view, Jesus is Lord.
But discussing God as the hyperspatial substrate on which all else hinges, I suppose I look toward the very nature of atomic particles or perhaps even the very nature of light itself. In others words, God seems to represent a spritual matrix similar to the most basic trinitarian formluae that apparently guide most of the basic formulae of the physics of the universe.
Unlike the formulae of physics, however, God would be like a divine eternal law of physics which is very sentient and aware, nearly omniscient, nearly omnipotent, and fully omnibenevolent.
Picture something like Kepler's 3 Laws of Plantary Motion, but that it is a "living being" that can actually think, act, and even change his mind if he so choses -- and his ultimate purpose is love all things in the sense of preventing evil from happening to them.
In this sense, the following formulae could be symbolic of God's triune nature -- and one will note that one cannot usually have these things unless they are fully in triplicate (but not always).
For example, one could say that M = D * V (mass equals density times volume). Similarly, in metaphorical language, one could say F = J * HS (the Father equals Jesus times the Holy Spirit).
Or, in another area, one could note that light is a wavelength, frequency and a direction. Similarly, one could note that the Holy Spirit is symbolic of the wavelength, the Son is symbolic of the frequency, and the Father is symbolic of the direction. Even more, just as one does not have light if the light lacks either a wavelength, frequency or direction -- so too, one does not have God if the "god" does not have The Holy Spirit, The Son and the Father.
Within the atomic analogy, I suppose that the Trinity could be considered symbollically represented by protons, neutrons and electrons within an atom. The atom seems to be a good starting point because, althought it can be broken up futher, it still seems to represtent the smallest particle that exhibits the unique chemical characteristics of an element.
In this sense, the Father would be akin to the atomic particles within the nucleus which are represented by the collective protons. Protons are the subatomic particles that have a significant mass and contributes the single positive electrical charge to an atom.
The Holy Spirit would also reside within the nucleus with the Father, but he would be symbollically represented by the collective neutrons. In this sense, the Holy Spirit, much like a neutron, would also have a significant mass but no electrical charge. Similarly, even as the neutron is unstable outside the nucleus, because it then decays into a proton and electron, the Holy Sprit is unstable outside the Trinity's influence because he then returns to both the Father and the Son.
Christ himself would probably be akin to the electrons -- with all that this implies.
Incidently, in regards to my favoring an omnibenevolent God over an omnipotent or ot omniscient God, I would interject the following.
Some passages say that God cannot look upon the face of sin. To be fair, I'm not sure if he is unwilling or incapable of doing so.
Some would suggest that he is simply unwilling to do so due to justice -- because basically people deserve it.
Others would suggest he is incapable of doing so by his "very good" nature -- because looking upon it would cause him to be evil.
I'm strongly in favor of the second position personally.
Other passages seem to say that God will discover sins by searching them out -- which begs the question, why would an omniscient God need to "search out" anything if he already knows everything?
It also bring up another question too: why would God need angels if he was already omniscient and omnipresent?
It seems to me that God would percieve evil as an inperceptible "void" that he cannot see into. This doesn't mean that he wouldn't be aware of a person who "sins" for lack of better words. Rather, as his love radiates otuward. it would be like a radar signal bouncing off all things good on both a phsycial and spiritual level.
For example, even though he wouldn't know the sinful thoughts -- he would know that their body is physcially there, and that they are feeling sad, happy, angry, etc.
Plus, as people pray to him (and I think he hears all prayers, not just Christian ones), he would filter out the "sin" to get a better grasp of what's going on.
In some cases, some prayers may come through severely distorted. For example, if the prayer is directed to another divinity, he probably wouldn't necessarily hear the part the blasphemed his own name by invoking a "false god" -- but he could still decipher at least those parts of the meassege that didn't sin against him. I suppose it depends on how much the "false god" is integrated into the wording of the prayer. Some messaes may come through so totally garbled that they are basically meaningless...
"help...pain...mother...did not...cancer..."
In my opinion, God is omnibenevelent -- but not necessarilly omniscient or omnipresent (at least within the universe). However, I do beleive him to be omniscient and omnipresent to all things good. This is to say, although "slightly limited", he still has an infinite amount of good knowledge and good presence within things that are not contrary to his existence or purpose.
The mere concept that God would give us a free-will seems to indicate -- from my Judeo-Christian background -- that God willingly and lovingly relinquished some degree of control over things so that people could have free-will. I suppose one could say that our very existence leads to God's humiliation -- and that he did this of his own free-will out of love.
Summing this up, I simply believe he's omnibenevelant to the point that he's not aware of evil. Either evil doesn't exist to him, or maybe his presense destroys evil (and thus he keeps at a distance for our safety?).
What I think is this: if God even thinks of evil, then he is partly evil -- which undermines his omnibenevelence. To me his omnibenevelance is more important than his omnipotence or omnipresence.
Let's face it: God can't be omnipotent if he desires for people to not kill -- and yet we are able to kill. Clearly, his desires are not being fulfilled -- at least as far as we're able to determine.
It is very important to note that I'm not saying he's powerless to act. Many tracts in the Scriptures clearly describe some magnificient acts on his part when he decides to take action -- and I personally have no doubt that those actions described in the Scriptures are generally real. I guess my point is that his willingness to give us a free-will seems to undermine his omnipotence -- but it was his choice in the first place to submit himself to our existence.
I guess I picture omnipotence being in total control of everything. Since things happen that do not jive well with God's plans (from my own Judeo-Christian perspective -- such as murder, stealing, lying etc, etc), it seems as though he has given up some of his omnipotence in order to let us have a free-will.
I could be wrong but it makes sense to me. I also beleive that many people get confused by this paradox because they're definition of all-powerful is perhaps different from his definition. I believe that the ability to genuinnely forgive and really love your enemies is the most powerful and perplexing force humanity has ever faced. People just don't know what to do when they strike someone, and the person turns around and turns the other cheek. True, they might continue hurting them, but it totally blows their mind if they have any sense whatsoever.
This is to say, I think that the ability to forgive others is what truly constitutes an all-powerful act. Transforming evil into good is a most excellent thing. Destroying evil is not an all-powerful act because evil has a tendency to destroy itself without God having to act at all. In short, anyone can do that. And wherever forgiveness happens, I think God is responsible by the Holy Spirit.
Also, although I don't think he's omnipotent (as carefully desribed above), I do believe he is omnibenevelent and also eternal. My understanding seems to lead me in the direction that he is eternally good without measure -- and that not even the thought of evil could enter his mind. His awareness of evil would rather be by virtue of the absense of his presence in a particular area.
When he encounters an area void of his presence, I think he sends his angels in to see what's going on -- and listens to the prayers of those who are aware of what's going on. I really think in more ways than one that God really needs to hear from us.
This is all my own belief of course. I'm not saying that anyone has to accept it. But since you asked...
I suppose in Christian theology there is the concept of the New Heavens and New Earth -- it's found in one way or another in many different Christian denominations -- and I guess that during that time God would resume his former position of omnipotence and omnipresence -- the same way he was [before] he created everything.
That's how I see it anyway.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-20-2005 04:40 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-20-2005 04:57 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-20-2005 05:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Mammuthus, posted 04-20-2005 7:18 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by mike the wiz, posted 04-20-2005 6:22 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 168 by Mammuthus, posted 04-21-2005 2:57 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 170 by Mammuthus, posted 04-21-2005 5:31 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 174 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-21-2005 9:09 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 176 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-21-2005 10:22 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 141 of 332 (200768)
04-20-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by mike the wiz
04-20-2005 6:22 PM


I know what your saying Mike and I respect it.
But the central point still stands, if we are claiming to know God, then we should at lest be able to give some type of symbolic represenation within nature which in some way depicts the nature of God.
We know by the Holy Spirit that Christ is the exact representation of the Father. But many who hear our words do not accept that.
In response to this, I've chosen to focus on God as Spirit with a triune nature -- as demonstrated probably imperfectly within the physical triune patterns which are evident all throughout nature -- and eventually point to Christ in this manner.
I don't claim this as proof. Rather it seems to be an over-arching pattern within physics itself which seems to reflect God's triune nature.
It is interesting to note that many of the sciencitists in the past were influenced by their beleif that God was reflected in nature, and that by studying nature they could gain a better grasp of the God who made all things (combined with the assumption that nature itself is fallen and bound to break down under certain conditions).
Certainly Boyle, Newton (although he wasn't trinitarian), Galileo, and Bacon seemed to work from something similar to this scientific paradigm -- and it has borne much fruit it wittling away the myths of science so that people may have a clearer pciture of what God is by pointing to what God isn't, basically filling in our gaps of knowledge so a clearer resolution of God's divinity may be perceived.
In doing this, I'm still making an appeal to Scriptures by suggesting that these similarities between God's triune nature and the triune nature of the formulae of physics may rest squarely on passages such as this:
Romans 1:20 writes:
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Or, similarly, as the Scriptures say:
Hebrews 11:1-2 writes:
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
In pointing to the trine God as the source of creation, it seems resonable to conclude that the physics of his creation should in some way mirror their creator -- which is something that I've attempted to do by pointing to the basic triune nature of physics found nearly everywhere we look.
Newton's laws of motion: F = m x a
Work and energy: W = Fx
Power: P = W/t
Pressure: P = F/A
Density: D = m/V
Electricity: V = IR
Obviously, if one looks further into these formulae, things get more and more complicated. For example, if one looks at the speed of a circle, one would see a formula like:
v = 2 pi R / T
However, these additions are there because new variables have been added to the initial basic trinitarian formula. In most cases, the basic formula seems to happen based on three basic variables. It might even be found in the future that other more complicated formulae may also be reduced to "threes" as more knowledge becomes available -- an interesting scientific prediction in itself based on our perception of and faith in God.
I suppose even the very nature of time might reflect this possibility. Past, present and future may reflect the triune nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is to say the past may be symbolic of the Father (the very essence from which all things proceed), the present may be symbolic of the Son (since he ever-present with us), and the Holy Spirit may be symbolic of the future (which points in the direction of where our destiny flows).
Even more so, when we look at the present, we see that it is constantly shifting and ever-present. For example, right now it is the present...but if I wait three seconds...
...1...2...3...
...viola, we're still in the present.
Can anyone really say exactly where the pasts ends and the future begins?
Was not the past at one time also the present?
Will the future not also someday be the present?
Won't the future and the past someday be the same?
Do not the Scriptures say that God knows the end from the beginning -- and do they not suggest that one day, at the literal end of time, we will experience God's timeless nature in the beautific vision of heaven which transcends time and space and may even have all time being experienced from one singular point of view?
If this is indeed true, it is in this way that we see that past, present, and future overlap with one another in a very deeply interwoven reality -- something which perfectly reflects the deeper mystery of the trinity and our future glory of residing with him.
Like I said, I might be wrong. I don't really need this to "prove" God exists for myself. However, to be fair to Dan's request, I've attempted to display a basic idea as to what God might be in a deinition that may or may not appeal to him.
Dan has the right to poke holes in my thoughts. Maybe he will accept them. Maybe he won't. But, then again, maybe he will start to look a little deeper into what we're claiming that we know.
We must never give up being creative in response to those who would challenge us to explain God more clearly. So long as we understand that these are "theories" not meant to be infallible, I don't see the harm in it.
In fact, I think we are made stronger by honestly listening and responding to the criticisms they level against us. Some of our "scientific" theories may be wrong -- and it might be for these exact reasons that they reject God in the first place.
Whether we are right or wrong, God will eventually make the truth known -- regardless of our input or lack thereof.
Who knows?
Maybe we might actually learn something.
That's my $0.02 worth anyway.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-20-2005 07:36 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-20-2005 07:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by mike the wiz, posted 04-20-2005 6:22 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Brad McFall, posted 04-20-2005 8:42 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 182 of 332 (200941)
04-21-2005 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Mammuthus
04-21-2005 5:31 AM


Mammuthus writes:
Two things you said in this part of your post seem contradictory to me. First, you equate love with a "substance" and claim that there is a "tangible" existence beyond the material world.
I suppose in doing this I'm making an appeal to the Scriptures as follows:
Hebrews 11:1 writes:
Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things now seen.
This passage of Scripture, perhaps more than any other one, seems to illustrate a basic starting point of my own perspective. The word for "substance" is the Greek word "hupostasis".
It comes from two words which mean "under" and "standing, stable resting, foundation." The word is perhaps more accurately translated in this instance as "the reality which rests under and acts as a foundation for"
It seems to be true to say that faith is somewhat without foundation. However, this is because faith is the foundation itself.
Admittedly, this seems to be circular reasoning. But the main point of my noting this is that it is not believed (even by many Christians) that it is our "human faith" that keeps the universe holding together. It seems more accurate, at least from my own Judeo-Christian perspective, to say that it is God's faith that sustains all things.
Hebrews 11:3 writes:
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
I admit that this may appear as a mere issue of semantics, but I think it is relevant to the points that I'm trying to express. God as a hypothetically living Spirit is conjectured to be sustaining our existence by believing in us -- not the other way around.
Mammuthus writes:
However, something without physical properties or something outside the material world is niether tangible nor has a substance.
This may be true.
However, even with God conceived as Spirit (with spirit implying mostly "inspiration" in this context), we can see that an inspiration within a real person's mind can lead to tangible actions.
In a similar way, at least hypothetically, the universe itself seems to have been inspired into existance by God alone. In other words, just as real people can think about intangible thoughts which nonetheless manifest as tangible actions -- God can think of the universe (which would be intangible to him) in order to manifest tangible actions (such as his incarnation within his own creation).
At the most basic level, hopefully we can discern the difference between that which is concrete reality and that which is our intangible thoughts. Failure to do so could even result in insanity.
What we don't like thinking of, however, is the possibility that our own "concrete reality" may only be something akin to the "intangible thoughts" of an omnibenevolent divine being trying very hard to bring us into his "concrete reality".
This thought too could lead to insanity if left unchecked and one tries too hard to grasp it. And this is only one hypothetical philosophical possibility.
Mammuthus writes:
If they did, you would be able to characterize it more precisely. could you elaborate a bit on what you mean?
I will try. But again, I may fail.
However, if we're looking past purely philosophical discusions and trying to ascertain an example of this "intangible reality" in scientific terms, one may well be able to point toward various string theorists and find a scientific metaphor there.
Before I proceed further, it is important to realize that no string theory has yet made firm predictions that would allow it to be experimentally tested.
However, on a more concrete level, string theory has led to advances in the mathematics of knots, Calabi-Yau spaces and many other fields. Much exciting new mathematics in recent years has its origin in string theory. String theory has also led to much insight into supersymmetric gauge theories, a subject which includes possible extensions of the standard model.
Most of this material as been gathered from the Dictionary.LaborLawTalk.com article regarding string theory.
While understanding the details of string and superstring theories requires considerable mathematical sophistication, some qualitative properties of quantum strings can be understood in a fairly intuitive fashion.
For example, quantum strings have tension, much like regular strings made of twine; this tension is considered a fundamental parameter of the theory. The tension of a quantum string is closely related to its size.
Consider a closed loop of string, left to move through space without external forces. Its tension will tend to contract it into a smaller and smaller loop. Classical intuition suggests that it might shrink to a single point, but this would violate Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
The characteristic size of the string loop will be a balance between the tension force, acting to make it small, and the uncertainty effect, which keeps it "stretched". Consequently, the minimum size of a string must be related to the string tension.
One intriguing feature of string theory is that it predicts the number of dimensions which the universe should possess. Nothing in Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism or Einstein's theory of relativity makes this kind of prediction; these theories require physicists to insert the number of dimensions "by hand".
Instead, string theory allows one to compute the number of spacetime dimensions from first principles. Technically, this happens because Lorentz invariance can only be satisfied in a certain number of dimensions.
This is roughly like saying that if we measure the distance between two points, then rotate our observer by some angle and measure again, the observed distance only stays the same if the universe has a particular number of dimensions.
The only problem is that when the calculation is done, the universe's dimensionality is not four as one may expect (three axes of space and one of time), but twenty-six. More precisely, bosonic string theories are 26-dimensional, while superstring and M-theories turn out to involve 10 or 11 dimensions.
However, these models appear to contradict observed phenomena.
Physicists usually solve this problem in one of two different ways. The first is to compactify the extra dimensions; i.e., the 6 or 7 extra dimensions are so small as to be undetectable in our phenomenal experience. We achieve the 6-dimensional model's resolution with Calabi-Yau spaces. In 7 dimensions, they are termed G2 manifolds. Essentially these extra dimensions are "compactified" by causing them to loop back upon themselves.
A standard analogy for this is to consider multidimensional space as a garden hose. If we view the hose from a sufficient distance, it appears to have only one dimension, its length. This is akin to the 4 macroscopic dimensions we are accustomed to dealing with every day.
If, however, one approaches the hose, one discovers that it contains a second dimension, its circumference. This "extra dimension" is only visible within a relatively close range to the hose, just as the extra dimensions of the Calabi-Yau space are only visible at extremely small distances, and thus are not easily detected.
An article by the Official String Theory website notes the following:
String theories are classified according to whether or not the strings are required to be closed loops, and whether or not the particle spectrum includes fermions. In order to include fermions in string theory, there must be a special kind of symmetry called supersymmetry, which means for every boson (particle that transmits a force) there is a corresponding fermion (particle that makes up matter). So supersymmetry relates the particles that transmit forces to the particles that make up matter.
I suppose in trying to define a "spirit" in scientific terms, I would conjecture that it may be like a force which mirrors the matter we are made of -- which is very similar to the Judeo-Christian concept of the spirit/body integration beleived to be involved in our lives "on earth as it is in heaven".
This is to say, for every spirit (which transmits an inspiration) there is a corresponding material (which makes up the very matter we are made of).
Supersymmetric partners to to currently known particles have not been observed in particle experiments, but theorists believe this is because supersymmetric particles are too massive to be detected at current accelerators. Particle accelerators could be on the verge of finding evidence for high energy supersymmetry in the next decade. Evidence for supersymmetry at high energy would be compelling evidence that string theory was a good mathematical model for Nature at the smallest distance scales.
In short, I would hypothesise that just as string theorists would conjecture that momentum in extra dimensions is "invisible", I suspect that God as pure Spirit is likewise so -- invisible within hidden dimensions.
Mammuthus writes:
With regards to Savants and autistics, though in the early stages of study, there is reason to believe the origin of their abilities and deficiencies have a genetic component...and the ability to count is present in other animals so I would not put too much weight on even remarkable abilities of such people.
This may be true. But the hard-wiring of their mind seems to be neurologically wound so that rapid mega-couplings of information can be perceived very quickly -- far more rapid (in discreet areas) than you or I could even conceive.
I'm simply suggesting that their rapid grasp of information may be similar to the prophets of old whose minds were extremely hard-wired to be attentive to God's patterns in the universe.
Remember: This is only a suggestion.
Mammuthus writes:
Your position should also mean you would be less inclined (or less threatened) by science including evolution if you view the natural world as an expression of god. Though perhaps I am misinterpreting what you are saying.
No. You are exactly correct. On a scientific level I see no reason to doubt why evolutionary mechanisms couldn't have done it. Admittedly, I still think that we still have much to learn in this area. This is to say, I think the theory of evolution is the best purely materialistic explanation for our origins going to date.
It is only on a faith based level that I am reticent of some evolutionary thoughts -- and this comes specifically from my own understanding of the Scriptures. If evolution was indeed the cause of life on earth, then I would be searching for an excelent theistic evolutioanry explanation to accompany it -- which I haven't seen yet.
As is, based on my own understanding of the Scriptures, I believe that man was created nearly instantaniously and virtually ex nihilo from the dust of the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Mammuthus, posted 04-21-2005 5:31 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Mammuthus, posted 04-22-2005 7:47 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 188 of 332 (200969)
04-21-2005 4:39 PM


While I deeply respect the positions of both sides of the tangential debate about "evidence" of God's existence, I do think it's off topic and seriously detracting from the main premise of Dan's initial post.
Just saying.

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 191 of 332 (200986)
04-21-2005 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Percy
04-21-2005 4:42 PM


Percy writes:
And yet Magisterium Devolver disagrees with you on a fundamental point.
But, to be fair, I'm still generally in agreement with Faith. The difference is that I'm pointing toward God's omnipotence and omniscience from an inverted perspective that starts with the emphasis on God's omnibenvolence.
For example, the Scriptures state the following:
II Corinthians 2:10 writes:
That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
Admittedly, we Christians often try to forget our weaknesses. However, God apparently wants us to remember it, to feel it deeply.
We tend to want to conquer our weakness and to be freed from it, However, God apparently wants us to rest and even rejoice in it.
We often mourn over our weaknesses. However, Christ teaches his servant to say, "I take pleasure in infirmities; most gladly will I glory in my infirmities."
Like many Christians, I tend to think my weaknesses are my greatest hindrances in the life and service of God. However, God often tells us that our weaknesses are the very secret of strength and success.
It is our weakness, heartily accepted and continually realized, that gives us our claim and access to the strength of him who has said, "My strength is made perfect in weakness."
Nonetheless, when one looks at life from this most humbling position, it causes one to begin to engage in a total metanoia of their mind in regards to what actually constitutes as true power.
When we look to God, what do we see for his only "weakness" in accordance with solid Judeo-Christian thinking?
We see that his only weakness is that he simply cannot sin.
That's it.
In other words, if God's only weakness is his inability to sin, this testifies to the very indestructable and holy nautre of God himself as being both omnipotent and omniscient in regards to all things good and holy.
Or, restating the Scriptural quote above and aplying it to God, we could say something like:
God's strength is made perfect in his weakness -- his inability to sin.
In comparison to this utterly holy nature ascribed to God, all else seems to me to be nothing more than a maelstrom returning to the void of chaos which preceeded the creation event -- a seething mass of quantum foam consisting solely of the nothingness of black holes and wormholes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Percy, posted 04-21-2005 4:42 PM Percy has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 206 of 332 (201252)
04-22-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by paisano
04-22-2005 3:31 PM


Re: God of the Bible vs God of imagination
paisano writes:
By no means. I follow the Catholic interpretation of this verse (that the death referred to is spiritual death, not physical death), not the (some) evangelical Protestant (s) mis-interpretation.
A slight word of caution paisano -- from a fellow Catholic.
The Catholic interpreation of the fall is that it refers in some way to both physical and spiritual death -- and that this is indeed the result of the original sin.
For example, in the Catechsim of the Catholic Church I read the following:
Catechism of the Catholic Church writes:
1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church's Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man's sin. Even though man's nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin. "Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned" is thus "the last enemy" of man left to be conquered.
However, unlike some other demoninations, the Catholic Church recognizes that death was already present within the world -- and that Adam and Eve's transgression effectively opened the way for worldly death to come upon them.
Another more precise explanation can be found on the Catholic Encyclopedia as follows:
Catholic Encyclopedia writes:
III. ORIGINAL SIN IN SCRIPTURE
The classical text is Rom., v, 12 sqq. In the preceding part the apostle treats of justification by Jesus Christ, and to put in evidence the fact of His being the one Saviour, he contrasts with this Divine Head of mankind the human head who caused its ruin.
The question of original sin, therefore, comes in only incidentally. St. Paul supposes the idea that the faithful have of it from his oral instructions, and he speaks of it to make them understand the work of Redemption.
This explains the brevity of the development and the obscurity of some verses. We shall now show what, in the text, is opposed to the three Pelagian positions:
The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death -- "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men". Here there is question of physical death. first, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary.
Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom in which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wis., ii, 24: "But by the envy of the devil death came into the world". Cf. Gen., ii, 17; iii, 3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, I Cor., xv, 21: "For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead".
Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed to corporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter.
Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Rom., v, 19).
How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death?
If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners.
But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death.
Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it.
Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality.
The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul.
According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it.
The causality of Adam as regards mortality would, therefore, be completely different from his causality as regards sin. Moreover, this supposed influence of the bad example of Adam is almost chimerical; even the faithful when they sin do not sin on account of Adam's bad example, a fortiori infidels who are completely ignorant of the history of the first man.
And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Rom., v, 18, 19). The influence of Adam cannot, therefore, be the influence of his bad example which we imitate (Augustine, "Contra julian.", VI, xxiv, 75).
I suppose in the most basic sense, I see the following in the Chruch Doctors:
They recognized that Adam and Eve already had the capacity to die -- but that this was not originally God's will for them to do so. This is to say, so long as they remained within God's grace, they would have remined effectively immortal.
However, as a result of their transgression, the potential for death was no longer restrained and it indeed came onto humanity in a "physical sense" -- and they were further subject to the danger of "spiritual death" by virtue of their "original sin".
This, in some mystery of iniquity, seems to pervade all of humanity (except for Christ [as true God and true man] and Mary [by virtue of the grace in Christ prepared in advance for her to walk in] and is transmitted via generation to generation.
Consequently, to further illustrate this "original sin/physical death" within a distinctly Catholic perspective, it should be noted that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is deeply inspired by the Spirit for this exact same reasoning.
For example, consider Henry Newman and his devotion to our lady as relayed by Thomas McGovern at Catholic.net.
Henry Newman writes:
One of the aspects of divine revelation which impressed itself on Newman’s mind was its consistency, the fact that all of its truths hang together. By means of the principle of the analogy of faith, what is taught now fits into what has already been received, a principle which, he affirms, is exemplified in many different ways in the structure and the history of doctrine.
This principle he applies particularly to marian doctrines, especially to the Assumption of Our Lady into heaven. It is a truth which he says is received on the belief of ages, but even from a rational point of view the very fittingness of it recommends it strongly. Mary’s assumption into heaven is, for Newman, in perfect harmony with the other truths of Revelation. It is also perfectly fitting that she, who had provided God with the elements of his human body, should not know death and decay. Who can conceive, he asks, that that virginal frame, which never sinned, was to undergo the death of a sinner? Why should she share the curse of Adam, who had no share in his fall? It is in harmony with the substance of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and without it, Newman avers, Catholic doctrine would in some way be incomplete.
In particular, Newman was especially taken by the following affirmation of St. Irenaeus:
Henry Newman writes:
As Eve, . . . becoming disobedient, became the cause of death to herself and to all mankind, so Mary too, having conceived the predestined Man, and yet a Virgin, being obedient, became cause of salvation both to herself and to all mankind
Essay, p. 417.
In other words, while death certainly existed before the fall, and while Adam and Eve had the potential to physically die (but didn't so long as they obeyed) -- their sin did indeed open the dooway to "physical death" as well as "spirutal death".
While we may (as Catholics) disagree with Faith on the scope of St. Paul's assertion, we should not distort our own sound Catholic doctrine beyond the scope of the intents of the Deposit of Faith just to distance ourselves from our "separated brethren".
Rather, in instances like this, I think it more prudent to search for statements within each others faith systems that we might have in common. It seems to me a much less devisive path to follow -- and will probably go a much greater distance toward reconciliation and understanding then the accusations of one simply being Scripturally reprobate.
Just saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by paisano, posted 04-22-2005 3:31 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by paisano, posted 04-22-2005 6:16 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 04-22-2005 6:39 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024