The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Does God require a special language? > Comments

Does God require a special language? : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 12/8/2013

This conception, or denial of conception, has been carried by the Christian tradition into the present day. For example Karl Barth framed God as the 'wholly Other', the one who could not be found at the end of any human path.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. 14
  10. All
Peter, here's a suggestion; if, as you claim, you can't say anything meaningful about God, then SHUT UP! Collectively, I mean -- you and all your proselyting cronies. You can't have it both ways; either God is something real and significant that you can spend your life painstakingly explaining to the poor benighted heathens, or he's a concept that you will never be able to make clear to plain ordinary people like us who think in terms of logic and reason. Pick a side and stick to it!

"The tiresome and never-ending debate between atheists and theists comes about because of the failure of each side to speak theologically. "

No, it comes about because of the failure of theists to explain what they mean and justify their assertions in plain language. If that's not 'speaking theologically', then so much the worse for theology. No other discipline seems to have the same difficulty.

But the debate WILL end, of course -- in fact in the West it is already trending rapidly towards the inevitable end, as people who choose to believe nonsense realise that they will always be challenged when they put forward their beliefs in public.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 12 August 2013 8:08:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Peter,

<<I find myself completely disinterested in the current round of arguments about the existence of non-existence of God.>>

Since the issue has already been resolved it cannot be interesting: For God to exist leads to logical contradictions, hence God does not exist. We thank God for this understanding that saves us from idolatry, that allows us to love and worship Him with pure hearts!

<<This debate goes back to arguments made in the 13thC about what we can know and say about God. An argument was introduced by Duns Scotus (1266-1308), derived from Aristotle,>>

Accordingly, here lies the root of evil, the contamination of religion by ideas of a materialist.

Those who advocate God as an object indeed deserve Jon J's fire and as he advised, should shut up. Instead, speak about yourself, how YOU love God, how you long to unite with Him, what you can do to love Him more, what you can do to draw your heart and mind closer to Him.

Dear Jon J.,

<<as people who choose to believe nonsense realise that they will always be challenged when they put forward their beliefs in public.>>

Such is the false belief in the world of objectivity, what nonsense!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 12 August 2013 9:32:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The really amusing thing is that Peter and his apodictic chums don't even have an original idea. It was devised nearly a hundred and fifty years ago by Charles Dickens, no less, in his first novel, The Pickwick Papers. The book tells the story of an association of gentlemen in London, presided over by the genial middle-aged Mr Pickwick. One of the unwritten rules of the club is that if one member should say something unkind about another, he can withdraw it by adding that it was only meant in 'a Pickwickian sense'. Thus if I were to say that my fellow-member Peter was a lying bastard, then add '...in a Pickwickian sense', honour would be satisfied and amity restored. And it all works, provided of course that nobody enquires too closely into what a 'Pickwickian sense' actually means.

All that Peter and his fellows have done is borrow the concept and change the name from 'Pickwickian' to theological. Thus 'God exists' in a theological sense means that God doesn't exist, and 'God is benevolent' doesn't mean that God actually does anything, but that if he existed, and he did, it would be good, in a theological sort of way.

So relax, Peter. When I said 'Shut up!' above, I meant it in a purely Pickwickian -- that is to say, theological -- sense.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 12 August 2013 9:45:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter, you might as well say you believe in flaydbli. What is falydbli? I can't say. Nothing I could say would about falydbi would be true. But you certainly should believe in flaydbli. And live your life accordingly.

The point is not new. If you cannot say anything literally true about God, then all that you say is empty, literally meaningless.

I think that MacIntyre was right. There are minimal requirements on the concept of God for worship to make sense (and I'd add, to be morally acceptable). These include that God is good, in the ordinary sense of the word, and that he acts, in the ordinary sense of that word.

Whatever the range of actions you then hold that God can engage in, the problem of evil arises. That is the starting point for many arguments about atheism.
Posted by ozbib, Monday, 12 August 2013 9:56:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<..when talking about the goodness of God..then "goodness" means the same as..when a person is described as good.>>

NO..IT DONT*
god is pure..100%..good..[all good]..[not a hint of darkness/vile]

PURE LOVE..who LOVES every living thing
the fact of life love logic..{light sustaining all life*

mans best 'good''..
pales in comparison..NUTHIN as good..as all good
[thus all the worse those who feign..to lie deceive gods creation..via the all good god..being named as a judge..as if..we need special words like agape..allgood belongs to god

we get closer to the great good
by doing good..by striving to love other
thus TRY..to love them..as god does..for the love/good they will one day end up doing*

jesus taught WE EACH..can find..the personal..knowable good
just by loving other..by whatever name

<<..at fiercely guarded language..about God>>

feigns 'special' gnosis..lol
yet that gnosis leads to the darkness
blind seede..leading the blinded see..upon stony ground

god is with
and within you/me us all life..
right now..

where god is life is

<<and that it tended towards an objectification of God
that made Him an object ..mong objects or a subject among subjects.>>

thats that secret gnosis phycosis

<<..It is this objectification of God
both by theists and atheists that make the argument
about the existence of God entirely irrelevant to Christian faith.

It amounts to idolatry.>>

yes i agree

<<..We can say..that while God is "wholly other"
we can also say..without fear of contradiction..that God is closer to us than breathing.>>

if god was to stop doing
THE*..things only god..can do
there would be immediate..darkness/complete and utter nuthinness

till you begin to pray..
and the light emerges..from with-in

EMMANUEL*..god with..[in]..us..[all]
your very life..is proof of the only true good..sustaining all life our living.

nogod
no good/no logic/no light/no love/no life
give your good_works BACK*..to god..get back many fold more shall be a given
Posted by one under god, Monday, 12 August 2013 9:58:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So...God is the God you have when you don't actually have a human-like God?
Well, that's a new concept alright.
Non God believers will never think 'theologically' Peter, so your argument is wrong.

I will go one further and suggest that any 'God' is the figment of some humans imagination, whether they see this God as having a human form or not.

I believe that back in ancient times, humans believed in gods like 'Mother Earth', who had a female form.
I think I like the sound of that one better....
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 12 August 2013 9:59:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. 14
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy