Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
Return to: Philosophical Questions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 11645--------------------------------------------------
The theology of essence
By: Kerry Date: March 9, 2016, 12:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What do people mean when they talk about the "essence" of God?
Does God have qualities that are essential and others which are
nonessential? An essence, to me, means whatever it is that
defines something. An object has qualities that are considered
essential and some that are considered nonessential. So could
God contain any nonessential qualities? If not, then it
doesn't make any sense to me to talk about essential qualities.
It seems wrong to me to talk about God having nonessential
qualities. Therefore it seems equally wrong to talk about Him
having essential qualities.
Think about the essence of rose. There the nonessential things
have been removed, leaving only the molecules that produce the
unique odor of roses. How could God be like that? How could
we remove or separate the nonessential things about God to leave
only the essential?
This question has always confused me.
#Post#: 11662--------------------------------------------------
Re: The theology of essence
By: paralambano Date: March 10, 2016, 11:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]So could God contain any nonessential qualities? If
not, then it doesn't make any sense to me to talk about
essential qualities. It seems wrong to me to talk about God
having nonessential qualities. Therefore it seems equally wrong
to talk about Him having essential qualities. [/quote]
I don't believe that God has any non-essential qualities but I'm
having trouble understanding the above. I don't see how it
follows that if it's wrong to talk about God having
non-essential qualities, it's equally wrong about Him having
essential ones. Your example of the distillation of the rose
seems to me to be an activity based on the utility of the sense
of smell but what about texture and beauty? If we smell the
aroma of roses, we might wonder what the source of its odour is.
It might immediately remind us of the flower in full bloom-image
and its thorn's "ability" to repel us. In other words there
might be more to the rose in essence than meets the nose.
Any non-essential qualities attributed to God are probably
imaginary I think.
para . . . .
#Post#: 11664--------------------------------------------------
Re: The theology of essence
By: KerimF Date: March 10, 2016, 4:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
People are free to say anything ;)
God gave a powerful human brain to every human baby (if born
normally) so that he will be responsible of himself when adult
;)
Also, a man is created with the ability to fool anyone even
himself if he likes ;)
During my scientific studies, I used focusing on what could be
useful to me in my daily life (to help me gain the daily bread,
for example).
And while I explore a certain subject (a project for example), I
use depending on myself as possible, despite the many sources
that claim having already the solution. From my experience, a
complicated project has usually many solutions; each is optimum
for a certain situation. So, instead of proving that the
proposed solutions are not suitable for my situation, I find the
optimum one for me, based on the basics.
Naturally, I do the same anytime I need having a useful answer
about something/idea related to my soul, my spiritual life.
One of the special gifts, created in men, is the ability to
imagine whatever one likes (or doesn't like ;) ).
I lost my father at age 9 years. Since then, I couldn't see and
hear him using my eyes and ears.
Although my dead father doesn't exist to the zillions of people
in the world, I can anytime seeing him and even talking to him
in my imagination. I never thought he doesn't exist with me just
because no one in the world is interested in perceiving his
existence as I do.
This applies also on my Father in Heaven, Jesus and the Holy
Spirit. I mean, I won't be surprised knowing that the way I
perceive my Creator is different from all other's ;)
The best knowledge of God that a person (including I) may get is
always a sub-image of God's Nature (sorry, my vocabulary of any
language I know is rather narrow). But a theist (also a Pagan)
can attribute 'any' image he likes (suitable to his life) to God
(or gods).
The sub-image of God as revealed by Jesus is different from
(actually an updated one of) the sub-image of God as revealed to
the ancient Jews. The latter one (of Jews) was re-adopted
(though as an Arab god) by Mohammad Al-Kuraishi to found his
social/economical/military/political system. I also noticed that
all 'formal' Christians in the world (that is... belonging to a
denomination or alike) also prefer seeing God as presented on
Torah or Quran. I mean, when I hear a non-independent Christian,
I have the feeling I am talking to a Jew or Muslim but the idol
he fears, obeys, praises and worships is the Father of Jesus
(though Jesus never said: "I am the Son of the Father in Heaven"
because this is very different from saying "I am the Son of
God").
On the other hands, when I solve problems in geometry, I don't
mind finding the solution I am looking for by using just small
(limited) pieces on some 'unlimited' straight lines. To me, it
is the same when I think of 'my' sub-image of God. I didn't need
knowing everything about God to get the logical answers about
'all' important questions I was looking for. But, on the other
hand, when a born blind, for example, likes talking about light,
he may repeat the sayings of whom he trust (having good eyes) or
say anything he likes about the science of light if he is real
powerful... hence also rich ;)
#Post#: 11666--------------------------------------------------
Re: The theology of essence
By: Kerry Date: March 10, 2016, 10:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=KerimF link=topic=1061.msg11664#msg11664
date=1457648849]
One of the special gifts, created in men, is the ability to
imagine whatever one likes (or doesn't like ;) ).
I lost my father at age 9 years. Since then, I couldn't see and
hear him using my eyes and ears.
Although my dead father doesn't exist to the zillions of people
in the world, I can anytime seeing him and even talking to him
in my imagination. I never thought he doesn't exist with me just
because no one in the world is interested in perceiving his
existence as I do.[/quote]
We can discuss the person you think of as your father although I
never met him. You think of him as your father; but surely he
existed before you were born. He was not your father then. He
existed without being your father. Therefore we can say his
essential existence did not, does not, and will not depend on
being your father. He became your father when you became his
child. That describes a relationship that it is relative and
depends on things that happened.
Most of the words we use to describe each other or ourselves are
relative and nonessential. Therefore, your mother would have
seen him as her "husband." That is a role. If he and she had
not performed the actions needed to be married, he wouldn't
have appeared to her that way. Other people had other
relationships with your father -- he will appear differently to
them depending on the relationships. None of those
relationships describe the "essential" person he was, is and
will be. They are based on passing roles.
If you choose to go to school, you become a student. If you
drop out, you cease being a student. Being a student is not
the essential person.
[quote]This applies also on my Father in Heaven, Jesus and the
Holy Spirit. I mean, I won't be surprised knowing that the way I
perceive my Creator is different from all other's ;)
The best knowledge of God that a person (including I) may get is
always a sub-image of God's Nature (sorry, my vocabulary of any
language I know is rather narrow). But a theist (also a Pagan)
can attribute 'any' image he likes (suitable to his life) to God
(or gods).
The sub-image of God as revealed by Jesus is different from
(actually an updated one of) the sub-image of God as revealed to
the ancient Jews. The latter one (of Jews) was re-adopted
(though as an Arab god) by Mohammad Al-Kuraishi to found his
social/economical/military/political system. I also noticed that
all 'formal' Christians in the world (that is... belonging to a
denomination or alike) also prefer seeing God as presented on
Torah or Quran. I mean, when I hear a non-independent Christian,
I have the feeling I am talking to a Jew or Muslim but the idol
he fears, obeys, praises and worships is the Father of Jesus
(though Jesus never said: "I am the Son of the Father in Heaven"
because this is very different from saying "I am the Son of
God").[/quote]
Men tend to take their ideas about God as eternal and essential
truths; but isn't that silly? It would be like you saying your
father should be called "father" by everyone else since that is
how you experienced him?
What we think we know about God is based mostly on His actions
as reported by others. Even if true, all they are describing
are temporary roles God took on when performing those actions.
People say God is the Creator. Is that the "essential" thing
then? If so, was God God before He created anything?
[quote]On the other hands, when I solve problems in geometry, I
don't mind finding the solution I am looking for by using just
small (limited) pieces on some 'unlimited' straight lines. To
me, it is the same when I think of 'my' sub-image of God. I
didn't need knowing everything about God to get the logical
answers about 'all' important questions I was looking for. But,
on the other hand, when a born blind, for example, likes talking
about light, he may repeat the sayings of whom he trust (having
good eyes) or say anything he likes about the science of light
if he is real powerful... hence also rich ;)[/quote]It is wise
to use the limited knowledge we have to solve the problems we
have.
Would it not be foolish for us to say that the entire line
depended on what we could see? That that segment was the
"essential" part of the line? Would the whole line disappear
then if we erased the segment?
#Post#: 11667--------------------------------------------------
Re: The theology of essence
By: Kerry Date: March 10, 2016, 10:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=paralambano link=topic=1061.msg11662#msg11662
date=1457630975]
I don't believe that God has any non-essential qualities but I'm
having trouble understanding the above. I don't see how it
follows that if it's wrong to talk about God having
non-essential qualities, it's equally wrong about Him having
essential ones. Your example of the distillation of the rose
seems to me to be an activity based on the utility of the sense
of smell but what about texture and beauty? If we smell the
aroma of roses, we might wonder what the source of its odour is.
It might immediately remind us of the flower in full bloom-image
and its thorn's "ability" to repel us. In other words there
might be more to the rose in essence than meets the nose.
Any non-essential qualities attributed to God are probably
imaginary I think.
para . . . .
[/quote]What is it about God that makes Him God? The
philosophers try to derive an answer by looking at things in the
physical world where we invent labels for things. An object
can have accidental qualities yet remain within a definition.
Is it essential that a cube have six sides? We say yes. That
is necessary, essential, and so on. But is it essential that a
cube be red or green? We say no, that is not how we define a
cube; but note that we are describing an "abstract" cube that
exists solely in the mind.
The concept of essential and nonessential are mental
constructs. The only place a "mental cube" exists is in our
minds. In reality, cubes can have colors and other accidental
qualities. It doesn't matter what color they are, we still
call them cubes.
Then the question is if we can apply such logic to God? Can we
say God has "accidental" qualities that don't matter since He'd
still be God? I say no because I believe only things in the
physical universe have accidental qualities. If we say God has
no accidental qualities, it makes no sense to say He has any
essential ones. God is one, and His attributes can't be
divided into "necessary" and "unnecessary" -- or "essential" and
"nonessential."
You can make almost any statement about God trying to define Him
and find a flaw in it. Put any word after "God is. . . " and
it will contain an error of some kind. "God is" may be the
truth without any qualifying words. This is the "unconditioned
being" of Buddhism and Hinduism; and it reflects what what God
told Moses, "I am what I am." God's existence does not
depend on any conditions -- He exists unconditionally -- free of
conditions. Thus there are no things which define Him --
nothing which can define some "essence" which makes Him God.
#Post#: 11668--------------------------------------------------
Re: The theology of essence
By: KerimF Date: March 11, 2016, 2:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think I got what you like saying here, Kerry. And I personally
doesn't see in it any illogical point.
On the other hand, I used being practical in my life; both
scientific and spiritual. So, naturally, I was interested in
definitions, ideas, theories... etc. that could be applied in my
daily life only. For example, I didn't mind working with the
non-existent dot in geometry (which is, by definition,
dimensionless) because it helps my life be easier ;)
But one way for me to pass a good time is talking, among
friends, about 'anything' as long no one is hurt; excluding me
because I am immune and nothing I may hear can hurt my feeling
:P
#Post#: 11669--------------------------------------------------
Re: The theology of essence
By: Kerry Date: March 11, 2016, 6:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think we should practical about God too. It seems an
impractical waste of time to imagine we know this or that when
we don't really and have no real way of knowing if such things
are right. I believe we have been told what we need to know --
and that is how we should behave in "real" life -- yes, in
practical terms. Israel was told:
Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our
God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to
our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Here is a link to an article that discusses "essence."
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1039.htm
It leaves my head
spinning. I have no idea what they're talking about; and no, I
didn't read it all and don't expect anyone else to. Suppose
though that I read it all and understood it and agreed. How
would it improve my life? Would it make me a better person?
Would I be move loving towards my neighbor? I can't see the
point of it.
Honestly sometimes I think people make stuff like this thinking
it will make them sound more intelligent than other people.
Some people think when they read confusing stuff, "Wow, that
person must be a lot smarter than I am." I read it and say,
"I have no idea what they're talking about, and I don't think
they do either."
I can judge if an idea is good if it produces good deeds -- in
practical terms. I can also sometimes tell when an idea or
belief is bad or wrong when I get bad results. If my car is
making a noise and I replace a part, I can tell if my idea was
good or bad. If the noise goes away, I was right. If it's
still there, I was wrong. Ideas I can't test don't interest me
that much -- some things are beyond my understanding.
I also believe what the Bible tells us in so many places, that
we will be judged by what we do. In no place does it say God is
going to judge us based on how many ideas about Him we got right
and how many wrong. Yet people are willing to fight over such
things.
#Post#: 11671--------------------------------------------------
Re: The theology of essence
By: paralambano Date: March 11, 2016, 10:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry -
It seems to me that those who spoke for God by inspiration had
more to say than just God is, no? I think that "God is" might
answer why there is something rather than nothing in part. But
we're not left clueless about Him.
We read that God is Spirit for one. What can this mean? You
suggest that God isn't physical. That's true I think. This tells
me that God is not material. We read that God is Love. What can
this mean? It's also Spirit I think. To say just that "God is"
is to experience the eternal and what Jesus said of God, that
God is Good. The terms (Truth, Life, Love, Eternal, Good etc.)
are essentially synonymous. An infinite, omnipresent Good has
only imaginary non-essential qualities. There's no "room" for
anything else. Mental constructs as you write. Hypotheses as I
like to say. The Real vs. unreal. This goes back to the garden
and what we're asked to believe and then to know.
para . . . .
#Post#: 11674--------------------------------------------------
Re: The theology of essence
By: KerimF Date: March 11, 2016, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1061.msg11669#msg11669
date=1457697899]
I believe we have been told what we need to know -- and that is
how we should behave in "real" life -- yes, in practical terms.
[quote]
As you know, I was born in a Catholic family and I was supposed
to believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches as being of
Jesus.
When I started perceiving the unit of the logical processing of
my brain in solving scientific problems, I also started
realizing the contradiction between what is known as Church's
teachings and Jesus sayings. For example, how Jesus claims being
'my' Light (or the Light, if one likes) while every Church (not
just the Catholic one) insists that Jesus came with more secrets
instead of answers. This was my starting point to find out
personally (on the Arabic Gospel I had/have) if Jesus did come
with logical answers I was looking for (to me in the least) or
not.
It happened that what got my intention first is about the way to
pray. Jesus is clear about it and He agrees with me that a true
prayer is mainly a personal matter and shouldn't follow any sort
of rituals. Naturally, I stopped going to Church on Sundays as I
used to. But I was surprised that I had a feeling of being wrong
for not attending Sunday Masses. And I had to know why, because
to me it was 'my' good decision (as also explained by Jesus). I
noticed that this feeling grew anytime I crossed one of the
priests I knew and respected. I discovered that my bad feeling
was caused for not obeying the persons I used respecting. The
solution was, therefore, to know/discover for sure if these
priests deserved my personal respect or not. So I visited them,
one after another, and tried showing them what I see as
contradicting between their teachings and of Jesus (at that
time, I was aware of a few things only). In brief, they told me
something like: "If we teach Jesus sayings by the same way He
did, most of our believers will leave the church. Our role is to
let people know Jesus the way they like seeing Him". Yes, their
last worry was (still is) to preach Jesus answers ;) After these
meeting, I had no more this bad feeling. But I learnt from it an
important truth. When a person has a reason to respect (hence
trust) another, he should expect to feel bad anytime he disobeys
him, even if he (the respected one) is wrong. So, the first and
hardest step on which a serious deceiver works is to find the
way, if not ways, to let some others (a few or many) see him a
respectful honourable person... the rest will be easy for him ;)
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1061.msg11669#msg11669
date=1457697899]
Israel was told:
Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our
God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to
our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
[quote]
Yes, this was addressed by God to the ancient Jews as we address
our beloved children when they are kids and not when they will
be adult and mature.
This reminds me when a little boy whose family moved to live in
my building asked me once to translate him the English
expression "Fu*k you" ;) I told him, it is a secret that belongs
to big boys ;D
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=1061.msg11669#msg11669
date=1457697899]
I also believe what the Bible tells us in so many places, that
we will be judged by what we do. In no place does it say God is
going to judge us based on how many ideas about Him we got right
and how many wrong. Yet people are willing to fight over such
things.
[/quote]
For instance, how, in your opinion, will we be Judged?
And to my knowledge, so perhaps I missed something, Jesus (in
person) doesn't say that God, He, the Father in Heaven or the
Holy Spirit will judge us (hence judge me ;) ).
#Post#: 11675--------------------------------------------------
Re: The theology of essence
By: KerimF Date: March 11, 2016, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=paralambano link=topic=1061.msg11671#msg11671
date=1457715549]
This goes back to the garden and what we're asked to believe and
then to know.
para . . . .
[/quote]
For instance, who may need asking us to believe (by a passive
faith)?
Is he God?!
I doubt, because only men have interest in making others believe
them so that they can better control their believers to flourish
their businesses; as the powerful/rich creators of wars do by
playing the men of God, the men of peace, if not the world's
saviours.
But God is already controlling everything and therefore doesn't
need (for himself) any believers or followers. But if God does,
He would be no more the God I think of ;)
*****************************************************
Next Page
You are viewing proxied material from gopher.createaforum.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.