Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Beyond our Ken" is a phrase that refers to the idea that God's ways are "beyond" our ways, thus human reasoning is insufficient to explain the actions of God. It is often used to justify things that are seemingly incongruous in theism, such as the existence of evil or avoidable suffering.
However, if it is in fact true that God's ways are beyond our ways, it would seem that we should recognize our inability to understand or predict his actions in all areas. It is possible, then, that God is a liar. Yes, I realize God has said he isn't a liar, but if his ways are beyond ours, it is possible that he has some very good reason for lying to us and telling us he is being truthful. It is also possible that he has entirely fabricated the general Christian narrative, heaven, etc.
My point is that, if we actually believe God's ways are truly beyond our ways, we must also recognize that we might be wrong about everything that we have come to know solely because God said so.
That is logically sound and makes perfect sense. That's why the question is: Do you trust the Lord? Do you have any reason to trust the Lord? If there are no answers to this question, then you may want to re-evaluate why you say you are a believer, if you are one. Blind faith is never a good thing.
That is logically sound and makes perfect sense. That's why the question is: Do you trust the Lord? Do you have any reason to trust the Lord? If there are no answers to this question, then you may want to re-evaluate why you say you are a believer, if you are one. Blind faith is never a good thing.
"Beyond our Ken" is a phrase that refers to the idea that God's ways are "beyond" our ways, thus human reasoning is insufficient to explain the actions of God. It is often used to justify things that are seemingly incongruous in theism, such as the existence of evil or avoidable suffering.
However, if it is in fact true that God's ways are beyond our ways, it would seem that we should recognize our inability to understand or predict his actions in all areas. It is possible, then, that God is a liar. Yes, I realize God has said he isn't a liar, but if his ways are beyond ours, it is possible that he has some very good reason for lying to us and telling us he is being truthful. It is also possible that he has entirely fabricated the general Christian narrative, heaven, etc.
My point is that, if we actually believe God's ways are truly beyond our ways, we must also recognize that we might be wrong about everything that we have come to know solely because God said so.
Understand the Christianity today does not represent the first Christianity.
The first Christianity was a sect of Judaism who did not believe as Christians today believe. It was an entirely different view of things.
Christianity looked to the concepts of Judaism with Messiah coming to teach great dark secrets of Torah, he would come and validate the religion of the Jews, and he even told us that they sit in the seats of Moses and we should do as they say.
The Jews wouldn't have us jumping through hoops, they would tell us that we are under a covenant ourselves under Noah.
We were just supposed to stand by waiting for the coming of David who gentiles and Jews appointed as one leader that made the two one.
Those gentiles who became the adopted sons of Joseph were to remain with David, but in the day they left David, they were no longer of Joseph.
The covenant only concerns Ephraim, so of Joseph and his ten tribes, and Judah.
Christianity left Judah, left the covenant under David, and are now lost.
Having said that, we live in the great day of Jezreel, prays God, praise God, let the gentile be gathered also to the mountains of Judah so that we may watch as it unfolds in Judah.
"Beyond our Ken" is a phrase that refers to the idea that God's ways are "beyond" our ways, thus human reasoning is insufficient to explain the actions of God.
...and yet, just look at how many of them are having a 'personal relationship' with this unknowable, incomprehensible enigma!!
If you could market faith like that as a soap powder,
you'd corner the market -
no matter what colours you put in together, they all come out shining white.
Why that was almost poetic....with a Savannah Georgian sort of charm.
My point is that you cannot have this middle ground of "I can know some things about what god wants, but I can't know them all." If he is fundamentally non-understandable to humans, we can know nothing about what he wants.
Christianity is a revelatory religion. Christians believe that God revealed himself through the Bible and most fully through his incarnation in Jesus. We know that which God has revealed. We do not know that which God has not revealed. Yes, we accept that what God has revealed might be imperfectly understood by us or, at least in theory, that what we regard as divine revelation might not be divine revelation at all. Through evidence and reasoning that is basically the same as we would apply to any question, we have arrived at a conviction that the revelation is truly divine. We believe that through prayer and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we are able to experience a direct, living relationship with God that reinforces our conviction. But still, we do not fully understand the transcendent, eternal God precisely because he is transcendent and eternal.
There is no disconnect or "middle ground" here any more than there is in any relationship. We do know what God wants of humans; he has told us. We do know what God is like insofar as he has revealed himself. What we do not know is that which God has not chosen to reveal, either because it would be beyond human understanding or because God has simply chosen not to reveal it for reasons that are his prerogative as the creator. Of all religions, Christianity is the least susceptible to the charge you seem to be making, precisely because we believe that God did reveal himself to humans, did incarnate before our very eyes.
Your wife says that she loves you, that she is faithful, and that she has only your best interests at heart. Can you know this, or are you forced to occupy a "middle ground" whereby what you can know is only what she reveals to you and what the evidence suggests to you? In fact, she is a $100-a-trick prostitute who plies her trade while you are at the office. And so - what? You did the best you could with the evidence available to you. You undeniably had a relationship, even though as it turned out you were completely deceived and really didn't know your wife at all. Even if your wife really does love you and is faithful, do you delude yourself that you really know her, that there are not hidden aspects of her person you will never know and might be astonished if you did? No, you are content with what she reveals.
Your objective seems to be to make the processes by which humans make decisions in every other area of life seem invalid when employed in the religious sphere. I believe the "point" that you say you are making in the above quotation is simply misguided because what you say is "non-understandable to humans" is precisely what they do understand in all of their relationships.
I'm sure you're sincere in pressing these points, but it seems to me that your logic is so obviously askew that I'm surprised you're having difficulty seeing it.
You also said, regarding Descartes' evil demon hypothesis, "The critical difference is that Descartes wasn't simultaneously claiming to know some aspects of what the evil demon wanted." Well, of course he wasn't. This was a thought experiment in which Descartes was asking, "What can I really know?" The possibility that everything we now consider good might actually be a façade created by an evil genius for an evil purpose, a la The Matrix, pushed him toward the conclusion that all he could really know is that he exists. If Descrates had actually investigated the matter and reached a conviction that there was an evil demon who had revealed what he wanted through an evil book and incarnated in order to drive home the points, then there would be an analogy to what Christians believe.
My point is that you cannot have this middle ground of "I can know some things about what god wants, but I can't know them all." If he is fundamentally non-understandable to humans, we can know nothing about what he wants.
This all-or-nothing attitude is quite prevalent in many circles about many issues. I have never understood why it is so beloved on either side of issues. Perhaps you can explain its appeal to me.
This all-or-nothing attitude is quite prevalent in many circles many circles :: snip ::
Yep. In many cases when the same person goes to a doctor to get his diabetes or High BP or other medical issues cured, and the doctor says there is no cure but here, this medicine will provide some relief. You keep taking and you will crawl along with the rest of us. You are not going get it all but here is a little something.
This person would never come up with the "all or nothing" approach. He won't say, sorry Dr. either you cure me or let this disease kill me.
Yep. In many cases when the same person goes to a doctor to get his diabetes or High BP or other medical issues cured, and the doctor says there is no cure but here, this medicine will provide some relief. You keep taking and you will crawl along with the rest of us. You are not going get it all but here is a little something.
This person would never come up with the "all or nothing" approach. He won't say, sorry Dr. either you cure me or let this disease kill me.
The difference is that the medicine the doctor gives you will have been tried, tested and shown, by verifiable evidence, to work. The medicine your religious doctors give has not.
The difference is that the medicine the doctor gives you will have been tried, tested and shown, by verifiable evidence, to work. The medicine your religious doctors give has not.
that's another irony.
This person who believes and demands evidence, actually NEVER participates or witnesseses, verifies and validates all the scientific experimentation done by the pharmaceutical company, he does not go knock on the door of FDA and ask evidence of testing the drug before it was approved, he does not have lab in his basement where he tests the drugs on mice before taking it himself. He does not have the academic qualifications to verify and validate the formula and chemistry behind the creation of that drug.
He may or may not read that little piece of paper written in size 5 font in a scientifically inclined language that he doesn't understand,,,,, guess what he does before popping that pill into his mouth ?? He uses faith !
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
