Joralex and Yaro, open to comment.

"Rule 5 is especially bizarre:
"5. God employs His definitions, not ours."

​

Language relies on and is defined by consensus. If God uses definitions that are not in agreement with those used by humans then God is wrong." Say what? "God is wrong" because He doesn't agree with OUR definitions?

​

With all due respect, PaulK, that is the silliest thing that anyone can possibly suggest. You may not believe in God, but IF He is what te Bible says then He is nothing less than the Creator of space, time, the universe and all that is in it. Now, IF this is the case then you say that unless He agrees with OUR definitions then He is wrong.

​

Please, tell me you're having a bad day and we'll just forget about your suggestion, okay?

​

Joralex

"What PaulK said makes a certain amount of sense. God would be quite the idiot to speak to us and not speak our language." It is up to us to seek out His meaning... not for Him to conform to ours. I fail to see what you cannot comprehend about this trivial point.

​

No, wait, I do see : people that do not believe in God in essence make themselves to be 'god' - the 'defining authority'. Hence, these people and their like-minded amigos name themselves the de facto standard that others (including God) must conform to. Yes, that's it... viewed this way what you say makes perfect sense.

​

Joralex

Concerning the comments about god "being wrong" for using different definitions:
Whether or not one considers god to be the ultimate authority on what words mean or the collected community of speakers, there is this fact:If you know that the people to whom you are speaking use the specific words in a specific way, then it behooves you to speak in that fashion so as to be understood.Why would god speak to people using terms he knows they won't understand?And more importantly, why would he get upset when they inevitably misunderstand? It is up to us to seek out His meaning... not for Him to conform to ours. I fail to see what you cannot comprehend about this trivial point.

​

No, wait, I do see : people that do not believe in God in essence make themselves to be 'god' - the 'defining authority'. Hence, these people and their like-minded amigos name themselves the de facto standard that others (including God) must conform to. Yes, that's it... viewed this way what you say makes perfect sense.

​

Joralex

Actually PaulK is right about this. Language isn't determined by authority, but by the community of people who speak it. This is fundamental to language. If God uses words in a different way than the community of people who speak the language, the community outweighs God, because there's more of them.Unless God is to be taken as a community of speakers larger than the society he's talking to. But that would mean he's talking to himself, a billion times over. That doesn't seem Biblical.Anyway, if God exists, and he created, then he created language. Therefore it's safe to assume he knows the rules of language, and when he says something, he's saying it using definitions consistent with the community of the users of the language he's using. It is up to us to seek out His meaning... not for Him to conform to ours. I fail to see what you cannot comprehend about this trivial point.

​

No, wait, I do see : people that do not believe in God in essence make themselves to be 'god' - the 'defining authority'. Hence, these people and their like-minded amigos name themselves the de facto standard that others (including God) must conform to. Yes, that's it... viewed this way what you say makes perfect sense.

​

Joralex

As I pointed out language is a convention defoined by consensus. Anyone who uses their own idiosyncratic "meanings" rather than those accepted by consensus is wrong. You are free to disagree but if you just declare my conclusion "silly" without answering my reasoning you are just showing that your "rule" is indefensible. It is up to us to seek out His meaning... not for Him to conform to ours. I fail to see what you cannot comprehend about this trivial point.

​

No, wait, I do see : people that do not believe in God in essence make themselves to be 'god' - the 'defining authority'. Hence, these people and their like-minded amigos name themselves the de facto standard that others (including God) must conform to. Yes, that's it... viewed this way what you say makes perfect sense.

​

Joralex

"What I can't understand is why you don't seem to see that if God isn't using our language the same way we are - if his definitions aren't ours - then he's made it impossible for us to seek his meaning." I understand perfectly what you and the others here that share your ideas are saying. For starters, you guys are making an erroneous assumption - that "God doesn't use our language the same way we are". Geesh, He invented language - I'd say that makes Him the authority, wouldn't it?

​

But He is also infinitely beyond us in knowledge and understanding and when He says many things to us they may 'appear' as "non-sense" (because of our limitations). Specifically, what is your standard when you arrive at a conclusion of 'nonsense'?

​

The correct way to approach God's Word is to realize what the Source is. With this realization it may take a great deal of digging for us to capture His meaning. He knows this and He also knows what we are capable of achieving if we set our heart and mind to it. The entire thing is part of His plan.Since God (if he exists, etc.) wants us to know what he's talking about, we can safely assume that when he uses a word, it means what we percieve it to mean. Ergo God's definitions are ours. His meaning doesn't have to conform to any of our expectations - but the words he uses to communicate it must conform to the expectations of the community he's addressing. This is fundamental to language and again, something God should already know. I won't argue with your points above but I insist that you're missing the bigger picture. You're not alone. I'll consider a new thread to try and explain this some more...It's really pretty simple. Your rule of "God's definitions are not ours" is pretty clearly just an escape hatch for whatever non-literal interpretation you plan to make to support statements that aren't literally Biblical. In the context of a God who's actually speaking to humans, the rule doesn't make any sense. I assure you, it's not an "escape hatch" nor is it meant to be one - it's fact.

​

Suppose, for instance, you had the power of life and death - that you could give life and take it away as easily as thinking about it. Would the secular definition of "killing" apply to you?

​

As another example, remember the episode when Christ fed 5,000 people with just a few loafs and fishes. Does the First Law of Thermodynamics apply to Him?

​

There's our definitions (and limitations) and then there are His. We must conform to His, not the other way around.

​

Joralex

I had responded to someone else the following and it fits your post also:

​

"I understand perfectly what you and the others here that share your ideas are saying. For starters, you guys are making an erroneous assumption - that "God doesn't use our language the same way we are". Geesh, He invented language - I'd say that makes Him the authority, wouldn't it?

​

But He is also infinitely beyond us in knowledge and understanding and when He says many things to us they may 'appear' as "non-sense" (because of our limitations). Specifically, what is your standard when you arrive at a conclusion of 'nonsense'?

​

The correct way to approach God's Word is to realize what the Source is. With this realization it may take a great deal of digging for us to capture His meaning. He knows this and He also knows what we are capable of achieving if we set our heart and mind to it. The entire thing is part of His plan."Since God (if he exists, etc.) wants us to know what he's talking about, we can safely assume that when he uses a word, it means what we percieve it to mean. Ergo God's definitions are ours. His meaning doesn't have to conform to any of our expectations - but the words he uses to communicate it must conform to the expectations of the community he's addressing. This is fundamental to language and again, something God should already know. "I won't argue with your points above but I insist that you're missing the bigger picture. You're not alone. I'll consider a new thread to try and explain this some more..."It's really pretty simple. Your rule of "God's definitions are not ours" is pretty clearly just an escape hatch for whatever non-literal interpretation you plan to make to support statements that aren't literally Biblical. In the context of a God who's actually speaking to humans, the rule doesn't make any sense. "I assure you, it's not an "escape hatch" nor is it meant to be one - it's fact.

​

Suppose, for instance, you had the power of life and death - that you could give life and take it away as easily as thinking about it. Would the secular definition of "killing" apply to you?

​

As another example, remember the episode when Christ fed 5,000 people with just a few loafs and fishes. Does the First Law of Thermodynamics apply to Him?

​

There's our definitions (and limitations) and then there are His. We must conform to His, not the other way around."Incorrect. Where did I say I don't believe in god? Are you making an assumption? Anybody who disagrees with your theology is an atheist? I made no assumption and, no, you do not have to subscribe to 'my' theology to believe in God. Did you make an assumption?

​

Joralex