»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
A Riddle To Start Off
| Philosophy 101 |
|
A Riddle To Start Off |
|
|
Robin Goodfellow Junior Member
since 1999-06-29
Posts 26 |
Ok, I'm going to carry this on into something else but first I wanted to ask this riddle to get people in the frame of thought and help grasp the point. The riddle is What does mortal man have on Earth that God cannot have in all his divinity? |
||
| © Copyright 2000 Robin Goodfellow - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Slushy machines? Playboy magazines? Beer? Card games? Big fat T-bone steaks with fried onions and baked potato with sour cream and chives? Midgets that can play the kazoo out their wahzoo? Regis and Kathie Lee? A market place for Vanilla Ice? DVDs? The Duck Billed Plyatapus? Oktober Fest? Computers? The NRA? A copy of the bible? Nike shoes? American Express Cards? Super Highways? Me?  Actually I haven't a clue what God has or doesn't have if in fact there is a God. Personally, and please don't take offense to this cause I don't know where you are leading this discussion to, I can't fathom anyone knowing the answer to your question unless they've been to heaven or sat and had croissants with the big guy himself/herself/itself. Anyways, I'm very curious to what you have up your sleeve  Thanks and take care,Trevor |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
A sense of challenge? A fear of death? |
||
|
rich-pa Member
since 2000-02-07
Posts 317New Orleans, Louisiana |
sin |
||
|
Lady Bere Member
since 2000-02-03
Posts 73Valmeyer, Illinois USA |
Puck, You do have my curiousity with your riddle. But then when I see the name "Robin Goodfellow" I tend to become a little wary of my answers. Maybe the answer is the unknown. Man can not know what may come, but God? |
||
|
Brent Hotchkin Junior Member
since 2000-02-15
Posts 42Florida,USA |
A physical body. That is why our souls make the journey to earth. For the feeling you get from being in the physical form. [This message has been edited by Brent Hotchkin (edited 02-20-2000).] |
||
|
Robin Goodfellow Junior Member
since 1999-06-29
Posts 26 |
Brent, no offense intended but the very thought of that makes my skin crawl. To even imagine that our only reason for being was to be a higher power's taste tester of Life is just Icky for lack of a better word. And gives me the feeling of being highly violated. |
||
|
poetSeaMaiden Member
since 2003-04-25
Posts 107 |
Goodfellow - - I think maybe what Brent was trying to say, is not that God is using us as guinea pigs or "testers" but so that WE can know the physical realm and appreciate more when we do pass, the spiritual realm - and how different the two are. Nothing icky about it. Besides that, God already knows everything - it's something he wants US to know and experience. - pFF |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Man on earth has a higher being to look up to if he has God. But God doesn't have a higher being to look up to if he is the highest being himself. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Christian Theology says God became a man (The Incarnation in Jesus Christ). I guess omnipotence can have it all. Oh, except for sin. He didn't have that. But that's because sin is only a twisting or lessening of something good, not a "thing" in itself ... an ontological negative. But God still took the condemnation of sin upon himself, for our sake. So in that sense, you could say he had it too. Anyway, what's the answer to your riddle? Or was it just a conversation starter? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Of course Christ-thanes believe God became man. But even as a man he is he. God doesn't have a being or authority beyond himself that is higher than he to look up to. He must get a sore neck from looking down to us so much. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-19-2009 02:26 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
But God didn't cease to be God by becoming man. I suppose God has his riddles too Ess. Trinitarian doctrine is a description of a mystery found in scripture ... That God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If this is true, the Son knows what it means to look up to the Father. The Father knows what it means to prepare the way for, and exalt the Son ... etc... The initial riddle struck me as frivilous at first. But now that I think about it, there's something to it. People have always wondered how God could be "love" if there was no one to love other than his finite creatures. Christian Theology affirms, not without mystery, that love, submission, relationship, have always been going on. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Indeed, but the Holy Threeness is not a multiplication of God himself. It is just a distinction of different roles that may be played by one and the same overall being. Don't you agree that God, as the overall being doesn't have a higher authority to look up to, something that man certainly has if man has God? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I kind of smile whenever I read that word "affirm" in connection with Christian Theology and especially when followed immediately by the phrase "not without mystery". "Affirm" has such a solid reassuring feel to it, which is unsurprising given its meaning: along the lines of "to assert positively as valid or confirmed". It's diction like that (coupled with all the razmataz, and ritual paraphernalia) that kept me from any questioning of my C of E upbringing for many years. How can something be "affirmed with mystery"? Wouldn't it be more honest for Anglicans to insert the word "guess" wherever they are tempted to be so forthright? |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Answer: A beating heart and therefore no brain and all its complex functions |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Have you ever affirmed that you love someone moonbeam? It is quite possible to be sure of something that is still (in many ways) shrouded in mystery. |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
A beating heart is a hunk of meat Mysteria. quote: Love is a feeling. I accept it's quite possible to affirm that you feel a feeling. You are affirming what is going on inside you - either the hunk of meat in your chest or your head. But the affirmation relates not to the actual qualities of the feeling but to the fact of you feeling it. Christian Theology is (I assume ) much more than just a feeling (or at least my divinity teachers would have had me believe so). How you can be "certain" of a theory or system while it is still shrouded in mystery I am not sure. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What about the theory of evolution? Isn't there quite a lot of certainty, yet a lot of "mystery" about it too? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam, Firstly, do you think love is no more than a feeling? Secondly, there are many things about the Christian faith which are affirmed with certainty. That doesn't mean that they are known or understood exhaustively. This shouldn't be hard for you to grasp, since your own beliefs about sundry things follow the same pattern. Yes, the Christian faith says that God is superlatively different from common phenomenon. But even considering your own secular perspective, the demand for seamless knowledge seems epistemologically inconsistent ... unless you want to say that you don't believe in certainty at all. And if you're saying that, we have no debate any longer, since you can't be certain of it. Tell me Moonbeam, could you name even one thing you are certain of, that has no mystery about it? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-23-2009 01:10 AM).] |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Ess Precisely. But see below re "certain". Stephen (please don't broaden this any more my wrists won't stand it - mercy mercy! )"Firstly, do you think love is no more than a feeling?" Fraid so Stephen, love is abstract - just a lil ole feeling. I'm not sure what you're trying to do with the rest of your post. You seem to be saying that christians are certain but not certain. This seems like semantics on route to avoidance to me. Who said I was demanding seamless knowledge? Certainly not me! All I'm demanding is that christians affirm positively, and preferably regularly, that they don't have seamless knowledge and they may in fact be wrong about everything important. That would be a good start. No, I am certain about one thing, and that is that I am not certain about anything except that one thing. So I guess all debate is grounded in mere probability, which imv doesn't make it any the less entertaining or valuable. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Rob, we obviously define "certain" quite differently. You must mean exhaustive knowledge when you say "certainty", or what else could explain your claimed uncertainty about everything except uncertainty ... and even I, considering your philosophy, don't know why that should be exempt. Can I ask you how you can be certain of this one thing? quote: That's exactly what I'm saying ... though not exactly. Certain about some things, uncertain about others, not having exhaustive knowledge about all questions of "how" and "why", though having enough to not doubt the thing in consideration. And though the subject matter may be different than, let's say, astrology or a committed relationship, the principles are very similar. Christians, like most people who are not Christians, believe things certainly while possessing only partial knowledge of them ... on authority, on trust, on experience. If God communicates at all, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect some degree of trust and authority would properly come into play. The interesting thing is, is that you can't escape this principle, whatever you believe. There is mystery about everything. I've never heard a scientist describe the question "how" comprehensively, much less the question "why". And yet I've never known a scientist who doubted that gravity is a reality, though perhaps he doubted the sufficiency of models and descriptions. But Gravity transcends Newton, Einstein, and Heisenberg. Stephen |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
