On May 3, 9:06 pm, SM <[email protected]> wrote: > > The specific thing I meant about losing common ground was when you > > said something about how people need to accept without trying to > > understand. I think you might have been saying accept God without > > trying to understand Him, but a person could apply the same concept to > > the Bible or modern miracles, that they may be incomprehensible but > > still possible to "accept." > > We will never make any progress understanding anything about God until we > allow ourselves to accept that we cannot comprehend Him. We must start from > > a position of *acceptance without understanding* that He is not only loving, > > He IS love; He is not only good, He IS goodness; He is not only merciful; He > > IS mercy, etc. Indeed, even our limited ability to understand these > concepts have no basis for measure or meaning apart from Him. > > The above quote is the closest thing I could find in this particular thread > that might possibly have been interpreted as you indicate (If you're > thinking of something else, then please post it so I can have a chance to > improve what I said). > > As I re-read this (without the benefit of context), I can see how one *might > * interpret it as you say ("accept without trying to understand"). I know > I've posted at least three times elsewhere in other threads (which I > recognize doesn't necessarily count in *this* one), that we're expected to > assiduously try to understand, and may have thought you already understood > that. > > To clarify the above paragraph, the intent was to indicate that we cant make > understanding God a prerequisite to trusting Him. Since it's impossible for > us fallible beings to comprehend God, we have to be willing to accept what > we don't fully understand in order to make any progress at all. Make no > mistake however, (as I've said elsewhere), we're expected to try.
I can see how an omnipotent, omniscient creator might have aspects that would be incomprehensible to humans. I suppose some people would say we couldn't or shouldn't believe in the existence of that kind of being without full understanding. I don't think I've been saying or implying that. However, before we get to all the aspects of God, we should start with the stories about God in the Bible. Are we allowed to assess the Bible and consider whether or not the stories are true, or must we similarly "start from a position of *acceptance without understanding* that" the Bible is true? Either way, your original claim is a paradox. There exists some thing, no aspect of which can be understood until the human trying to understand it accepts that it is incomprehensible. If it's true that the thing is incomprehensible, then it doesn't matter whether we accept it or not, it will still be incomprehensible. > I hope that re-establishes our 'common ground'. :) I misinterpreted what you said as being more strongly in favor of faith/rejecting reason. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
