United With God

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
paradox3 said:
Agree that there is more diversity of belief in the United Church than you might imagine if you just looked at the website.

Are you going to explain to us why you think Dave is a threat? Upthread you told us:

What is the threat you think is not recognized?
Click to expand...
Who else needs clarification of this? His proposals would make more people feel unwelcome and create second class members.

I put effort into being clear and concise. What I see is you deliberately misunderstanding because it's in your interests to pretend I'm not being clear or forthcoming.

If you want clarification, ask Dave if believing in the Triune god as a metaphor is enough? Or do you have to believe in three-entities-as-one? And I'm not even sure what I'm typing, but at least I'm trying.
 
You obviously have to take it metaphorically, or we'd be talking polytheism. Which honestly, with the way some Evangelicals raise up Satan, is a problem anyway.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Which honestly, with the way some Evangelicals raise up Satan, is a problem anyway.
Click to expand...

Actually, the whole God vs. Satan thing has always reminded me more of Zoroastrian dualism (Ahuramazda vs. Ahriman) than classical polytheism. In fact, I've speculated that that might have been an influence, though I don't know that I've ever found any good evidence for it.
 
chansen said:
This. Paradox, you can't blame language here for your unwillingness to say what you mean.
Click to expand...
Who, me, personally? I am not unwilling to say what I mean at all.

And I do see limitations to language when it comes to discussing theology.
 
chansen said:
I put effort into being clear and concise. What I see is you deliberately misunderstanding because it's in your interests to pretend I'm not being clear or forthcoming.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear you read my posts this way.

Do you not like to be asked to clarify or expand on some of your arguments? You didn't even want to explain your ski club analogy fully. . . Remember when I asked you if skiers and snow boarders used the same hills or belonged to the same clubs? I was trying to understand your analogy and truly did not understand the sports involved. I have barely even heard of snowboarding. Wakeboarding I am familiar with from the lake.
 
I made a very clear analogy of acceptance and accommodation. Other people tried to spin it into other things.

Again, not in your interests to understand it, so you'll misrepresent it and try to muddy the waters.
 
paradox3 said:
Who, me, personally? I am not unwilling to say what I mean at all.

And I do see limitations to language when it comes to discussing theology.
Click to expand...
Is it limitations of language, or limitations of the theology? You can't demonstrate anything, so I think you hide behind "language limitations". Your real limitation is understanding. You don't understand what you claim to believe, and you can't nail it down to any particular definition of literal or metaphorical God(s) because they can all be effectively criticized, so you'll remain vague and say the problem is one of language. It's not language. It's your choice of language.
 
chansen said:
Is it limitations of language, or limitations of the theology? You can't demonstrate anything, so I think you hide behind "language limitations". Your real limitation is understanding. You don't understand what you claim to believe, and you can't nail it down to any particular definition of literal or metaphorical God(s) because they can all be effectively criticized, so you'll remain vague and say the problem is one of language. It's not language. It's your choice of language.
Click to expand...

Actually, she's right. "God" has become such a broad, vague word theologically speaking that you really cannot use it unqualified in a serious discussion. You really do need to specify your understanding of what it means. That's a language limitation that forces a language choice.
 
Right, but that's not a "limitation of language" - that's an unwillingness to make a choice.

Let's try this:

Is the "Triune God" the often described Holy Hat Trick of God-Son-Holy Spirit, who are real and Jesus was divine and walked on the Earth and is coming back and all that jazz, or is it acceptable to "believe" in the "Triune God" which is a metaphor for a greater power we don't really understand and the bible is similarly mostly metaphor for how early believers came to terms with the unknown?

And if the latter, and this is all over acceptance or non-acceptance of a metaphor, then what the hell is the commotion about?
 
chansen said:
And if the latter, and this is all over acceptance or non-acceptance of a metaphor, then what the hell is the commotion about?
Click to expand...
I dunno. All I said was using the word "who" to refer to God is a limitation of language. If we don't conceptualize God as a "who" that is. We can't just substitute the word "which" for God because that is equally problematic.

I suggested a rewrite of a sentence in post #176 to avoid using either "who" or "which" to refer to God.

Still see this as a limitation of our language.
 
paradox3 said:
I dunno. All I said was using the word "who" to refer to God is a limitation of language. If we don't conceptualize God as a "who" that is. We can't just substitute the word "which" for God because that is equally problematic.

I suggested a rewrite of a sentence in post #176 to avoid using either "who" or "which" to refer to God.

Still see this as a limitation of our language.
Click to expand...

Okay, so to be clear, what you are really talking about as a limitation of language is the need to use a personal pronoun/interrogative to refer to "God" when "God" may, in fact, transcend use of such words in some understandings of "God". That is, indeed, a limitation of language. For me, God is a more of a "which". For most Christians, including most in the UCCan, God is a "who".
 
Great, so it's hard to say if God is a "who" or a "what". Pick one. Or use "he/she/it" as far as I care.

Is he/she/it a metaphor, or a being?
 
Mendalla said:
Okay, so to be clear, what you are really talking about as a limitation of language is the need to use a personal pronoun/interrogative to refer to "God" when "God" may, in fact, transcend use of such words in some understandings of "God". That is, indeed, a limitation of language.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly.
 
By that "limitation of language", if humans made a sentient robot, we'd have the same "limitation". Would it be a "who" or a "what"? Either way, we would not throw in the towel and say we can't describe the robot. And we would not accept it if someone claimed that.
 
paradox3 said:
The quote does not rule out belief in a triune God if that is what you are asking.
Click to expand...


The quote I posted doesn't indicate a necessity to believe in a triune god either - despite the fact that some people would immediately recognise that Thurman is talking about the Holy - god - spirit or whatever words are used to describe mystery, awe, wonder and unknowing. .
 
Yes, Paradox, you did suggest an edit. But Dave wrote the sentence. Writing is deliberate; clearly "who" most closely resembles how he describes god. United with God just seems like another wagon-circling exercise to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top