Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
He was not just arguing against God being an impersonal force, but he is discussing in what sense God should be considered "invisible". Is God literally omnipresent? Is God "wholly other"? How is God considered to be transcendent and immanent? So, quit side stepping and just answer the questions Bill.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Since you dodged the actual perspectives given in my previous two posts, I suppose I will just rephrase them and hope against odds that you will actually address these issues:
I brought up 3 ideas raised Cherbonnier:
1) How is God "invisible"
2) God in relation to "spatio-temporal" existence (transcendence and immanence)
3) God supposedly being "wholly other" compared to man
I gave an example, like Trinitarians believing God the Father is "invisible" as a matter of principle, or in a metaphysical sense. Cherbonnier argues against that:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Do you agree with this explanation concerning God being "invisible"?
If not, how does it contrast to your view?
This next one was in relation to the second idea:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7) In what sense is God transcendent and/or immanent?
"Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense.
..., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...
The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation....
Neither is the biblical God immanent, in the sense that He is diffused throughout the universe. To insist that He is omnipresent would be to imprison Him. The biblical God can be wherever He wants to be. If He is "immanent," it is only in the sense that He takes an active role in his creation, and particularly in human history, guiding the destiny of nations in ways they little suspect.
In the biblical context, the meaning of "immanent" is thus not very different from "transcendent." God is immanent insofar as He acts in history. He is transcendent insofar as He acts triumphantly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
Do you agree with this explanation of transcendent and immanent?
If not, how does it contrast to your view?
Finally, we have the concept of whether or not God is "wholly other". This is a common phrase used by classic theists, and Cherbonnier appears to disagree with it.
- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Do you agree with this idea of God not being "wholly other"?
If not, how does it contrast to your view?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
-7up
Leave a comment: