God vs. logic

[Alex Haig]

Christ is Risen!

It seams that this is a very good place to ponder questions. The same person who posed the question about "The Lineage of Christ" (see other thread) posed me this question too (NB this person was very anti-Religion and Christianity in particular, however he knew enough to 'justify' his unbelief in his own mind).

The question was as follows:


God is all powerful - omnipotent: if He is such then He can do anything. Surely then He could create a being more powerful than Himself, but then he would not be omnipotent, therefore no longer God.

I posed this question in another forum and the only answer received was that this arguement presupposes that logic is above God which goes against the proposition that God is omnipotent. Is this the only arguement against this? Any ideas would be gratefully received.

With love in Christ

Alex

[John Curtis Dunn]

Alex haig wrote: "The question was as follows:
God is all powerful - omnipotent: if He is such then He can do anything. Surely then He could create a being more powerful than Himself, but then he would not be omnipotent, therefore no longer God.

I posed this question in another forum and the only answer received was that this arguement presupposes that logic is above God which goes against the proposition that God is omnipotent. Is this the only arguement against this? Any ideas would be gratefully received."
------

Alex, the logic of the question is wrong at many levels, the question itself appears sophmoric and as an attempt to trip you up. At the pastorial level, I would suggest not entertaining the question as a serious inquiry.

I suspect your friend has watched one too many Sci-Fi movies which depict computer intellegience and machines becoming more intellegent than their maker, i.e., man. This is my suggestion on how you address his question.

john dunn

[Daniel Jeandet]

More powerful.

Omnipotent doesnt mean most powerful. Its beyond meaning I think. Where is "more" in God? More is away from less, its a built in aspect of travelling from less to more. Omnipotent isnt being able to do anything, its that everything is because of it.

I have found that logic fails me when I enter into temptations about my faith. In my opinion it is neither logical or iliogical to believe in God. I dont think there is any opposite to believing in God.

[James H.]

This question reminds me of something I heard on a Fr. Thomas Hopko tape (or was it Fr. David Anderson?). He basically said that there comes a point where philosophy has to take a back seat. As humans, there is only so much we can understand and logic is sometimes the most sure, clear cut approach we can take on issues. There comes a point, however, when we just take it in blind faith. Everyone's philosophy (St. Thomas Aquinas', Kant etc.) will fall flat on its face if taken far enough. That is why it is so essential that the Church preserve the respect She has always had for mystery. I swear that our Western minds will be the end of us, for we just never stop analyzing. Our culture revolves around the fundamental notion that everything can be ameliorated or explained by logic. As Orthodox we have to fight this tendency and realize when our human logic has become useless and impotent. In the end it is, at best, only shadows of what is true (I know this is platonic, but this Orthodox, right? correct me if I went to far here).

God is Love... but does this word even come close to Who He really is? Of course not, to limit him to such would be blasphemous. God is omnipotent... but does this even do justice to Him? In the end all we can do is apply our dopey logic to greater Truths that are beyond our comprehension. Faith fills this gap; it admits our limitations and humbles us.

James

PS: Alex, please understand that I was in know way accusing you of overanalyzing anything. I know you weren't doing that and I received your post with nothing but the best of intentions. I know you already understand that logic is not the end. Your friend however may not, since he is not Christian. This is perhaps why his question seems so valid to him and superfluous to the Orthodox mindset. So please do not take my post as a criticism of your ideas, but rather of your friend's http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Alex,

Following along with what the others have pointed out I would also say the question is quite mixed up.

When this person poses the question using the words "powerful-omnipotent" he is using them in a way which cannot refer to God since God is not 'the most powerful' of anything. This is a fundamental mistake we often make- thinking that God is the greatest Being. In the Introduction of John J Jones to The Divine Names & Mystical Theology of St Dionysios Areopagite (Marquette Univ Press, 1980)it is explained that God is not 'supernatural'- (hyperousios)in the way we usually think of God being the greatest, highest, most powerful,etc Being. Rather, "on hyperousios is to be translated as 'beyond-beingly be-ing.'" Or to be read as one, "divine being: beyond beingly-be-ing." Jones then says, "Far from marking the divinity as be-ing in the highest manner or way, these adverbs deny that the divinity is any manner of be-ing." Isn't this magnificent?
Now when we turn to Chapter 8 of the Divine Names about the Power (ie omnipotence) of God the saint writes, "We say that God is power as before-having & beyond-having every power in itself, cause of every power, bringing forth all in an unlimited and undefined power, be-ing cause of the being itself of power whether universal or particular, unlimited power, for not only does it bring forth every power; it is beyond every power- even power itself...It is an unspeakable, unknown, and inconceivable power, beyond-having all, which, through abundance of power, empowers the weak and conserves and preserves the last beings which are echoes of its power." (DN,Chap.8,2)

Now if the person who posed the question feels themselves even above this angelic vision of God well what answer can you give?

In Christ- Fr R

[matt]

Much could be said about misusing logic and calling it philosophy, but at least one thing can be said about absurd "problems" about God making rocks that he can't lift or His inability to tell a lie or do an evil act, etc. God can do all things that are possible and God can do all things that he wills. Being all-powerful is not being a magician, but rather being able to fully realize the will. God cannot do something irrational, like creating a square circle or will Himself into nonexistence. Why? Because it is not possible if it is not just that, possible. God's omnipotence is limited, if you want to call it that, by being able to do only what can be done. Putting a series of words together that seem to amount to a conundrum (“What is the smell of blue?” or “If I arm wrestled myself, who would win?”) appear on the surface to be a deep thought, but they are a misuse of logic and words. Not all sentences have meaning, but I think that all concepts do. There is no concept of God having a beginning, for example, but for all other objects (God is not even an object) we can conceive of them as having a beginning. This is also found in Anslem, “God cannot be conceived not to exist. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (aliquid quo nihil maius). That which can be conceived not to exist is not God.” Aristotle, I think, defined knowledge as knowing things in their causes, which is a tautological way of saying you cannot know God in that sense. Thus God’s not having a cause leads even logic to admit that God is incomprehensible. (But this is not what we mean by apophatic theology!) He also said, or maybe it was Plato or Socrates, that the beginning of wisdom is to wonder at things.

This wonder if the basis of knowledge, and often it leads to an admission that something is supralogical or illogical, but we shouldn’t give up too fast just because we have to think a little harder or look stupid at first. We often believe the right things for the wrong reasons, have the first premise shown to be wrong, and give up. But we need to fight it out and find the right reasons to believe. How many of us, upon discovering that sola scriptura was in fact a false teaching, had a minor or major crisis of faith concerning everything else? I thought to myself, “If the bible isn’t the only rule, how can I trust anything?” Yet I again came to believe the right things (Jesus Christ and the whole package) for the right reasons (the Orthodox approach and experience). And if someone tests that, well I better be able to accept the challenge and admit that I might be wrong and continue to search for the Truth. And this is why it is so important to remember that, as someone once said, the need to be right can have little to do with love for the Truth.

MAtt

[Clifton D. Healy]

I would add to the comments already made by saying that there is a fundamental mistake we moderns tend to make (something ancient philosophers like Aristotle mostly avoided) and that is equating logic with ontology.

While it may be logically valid to argue that God cannot make a rock larger than he can lift (though in reality the syllogism suffers from a confusion of terms), whether this obtains in reality (that is to say ontologically) is a whole 'nother matter.

Logic does use words that refer to things, and in Aristotle's "naive realism" case, logic did in part refer to reality. But logic did not make ontological claims. That is to say, logic is about semantics, and it's purpose is to clarify misunderstandings so the real science (say, metaphysics) can then get under way.

This sounds like a freshman logic mistake: give a new logic student a few rules, and they go wild.

[Peregrino]

The argument challenging God's omnipotence which asks "can God make a rock so large he cannot lift it?" was one told to me by my Grandmother (an Atheist). It guided my thinking for a long time until I was open enough to hear the call of faith that had always been there. Coming from this skeptical, atheistic background, I can attest how easy it is to close your mind to God's presence through use of our rational faculties.

I finally realized that this argument didn't tell me anything about God but about our logic and language. We can approach and try to understand the concept of omnipotence through our language but in final analysis our logic and language cannot encapsulate it. Our language and logic allows us to create a contradiction about a concept (omnipotence), such that this concept can never apply to a subject. The only thing that this argument does is demonstrate the limitations of logic and our ability to truly comprehend and understand the world. Don’t get me wrong, logic, language and the scientific method have allowed us to accomplish great things, yet they have their limitations. Verifying and making claims about God is one of those limitations.

It seems fairly clear to me that a rational and empirical epistemology is not the best way of gaining knowledge of God. They have their limitations. Faith and Grace seem to me to be the best ways. A profound respect for the sacred mysteries of God and the world is a great counter balance to have to the potential egoism and atheism that can result from relying on are own remarkable yet limited abilities to make claims about truth and existence.

[Anastasia Theodoridis]

> We ought to be careful about making any dichotomy between God and logic. Christ, after all, is the eternal "Logos" of God, God's Logic or Mind or Reasoning.

My husband, who is a psychiatrist, says there are actually two parts to human logic, each housed in a different part of the brain, and that when we fail to think in spiritual principles, we are actually only using half our logic, and the lesser half at that. We thereby become ILLOGICAL and stupid, actually. The problem isn't that we are using too much logic, but too little.

Okay, I don't understand all that. But I do understand that in various denominations, there is a problem in thinking. The problem isn't precisely that there's too much thinking, but but un-Spirit-ual thinking. In a long discussion with my husband, came up with some points about what distinguishes spiritual thinking from earthbound thinking.

Spiritual thinking begins and ends with Jesus Christ as Son of God, not with, for example, Aristotle, as in scholasticism. Christ is its primary and ultimate datum, and in a way its ONLY datum, as He is the summary of all in all.

Spiritual thinking lacks any passions, any self-serving element. Take a closer look at all the pseudo-churches and you'll find some element of passion in each one; a common example is a theology that gratifies our human "sense of of justice," which is based upon hostility.

Spiritual thinking is apophatic. Anybody who has truly encountered the living God does NOT have a disposition or inclination to try to analyze and dissect Him. He is inclined to reverence, woner, and awe. He knows a God Who, being transcendent surpasses all language; being unique, overflows every category; being infinte, defies every de-finit-ion and being Lord of all, cannot be put into rules.

In summary, spiritual thinking is thinking in the Holy Spirit, thinking with the Mind of Christ.

Well, that's as far as he and I got in our discussion, but I would love for this group to explore the topic further.

Anastasia

>

[matt]

Recently I was talking with a friend who has a difficult time with God and Christ based upon her "logical" approach. It hit me clearly that her problem, and that of many atheists and agnostics, is not one of logic necessarily, but more of intuition and imagination. Of course, the whole “God and the big rock” pseudo-conundrum is one of logic and its misuse, but beyond that there are so many folks who have no intuition for the presence of God for a variety of reasons both within and without their control. I am not advocating the whole “feelings” and experience approach to faith and the Christian life, but I am saying, and I did say to my friend, that she lacks not logic but IMAGINATION. She couldn’t believe that God would be incarnate in the womb of a virgin in the middle of nowhere not by logic but by imaginational weakness. Odd as it may seem, she readily agreed that she never thought of it that way and that it really had nothing to do with logic but rather of the imagination’s habit of not being used in such a manner. Sometimes it is like a person who sits in a dark room who has no capacity to conceive that there is anything outside (a clear Plato rip-off, I know). For others their mind is hardened to look at the world beyond their carnal senses. But beauty and love and longing are at the heart of life and bring the mind and heart back into sync, reminding us if only by whispers that Someone is nearer to us all that our own families and that we live move and have our being in Him, as St Paul reminds the pagans quoting their poets.

I really think this is an important point to consider when we ourselves have doubts or when we talk with people who may have misinterpreted or based their agnosticism on logic when it is actually at root a problem of a blasé or dull inner life.

Doesn’t this seem to be how Tolkien and his other friend helped convince Lewis that Christianity was in fact true, that it was a true myth, a myth become fact?

Anyway, there is a very clear, fun and short book entitled “Does God Exist?” by Todd Moody that you all might enjoy and benefit from reading that goes over much of what we have discussed on this thread.

Matt

[Owen Jones]

Alvin Plantingen is one of the world's foremost logicians and is a Calvinist. He absolutely decimates all of the academic nihilists with logic. It has its proper place.

[matt]

I enjoyed and learned from Alvin Platingen’s “God, Freedom, and Evil” a great deal. Absolutely- logic has its place. I hope I wasn’t misunderstood to say otherwise. My only point is that many objections to Christianity are not based upon logical arguments, which obviously have their place, but upon other factors such as emotional or imaginative difficulties.

[Owen Jones]

I thought you made an excellent point about imagination and I did not mean to negate it by a reference to logic.

[Peregrino]

Owen, I am not super familiar with Alvin Plantinga. My sense of his writings indicate that he believes that a belief in God is "properly basic" (his term) in the same sense that we know we exist, are aware of other minds etc. Our awareness of God falls into/under these categories. Can you point me to his writings regarding nihilism and logic? Thanks.

[Owen Jones]

Sorry, I've only heard him lecture and debate. I'm personally not moved by his argument, since existence is really a question, not a fact. But some people do respond to logical proofs and there is a role for that.

[Iqbal Youssef]

Dear Alex,

Im currently studying the philosophy of religion which deals specifically with the existence of God. A similar question was raised with regards to God's omnipotence and that was:

"Can God create a stone too heavy for Himself to lift?"

There seems to be an apparant dilemna here. For if we say no He cannot, we are in turn saying that God is limited in His creative powers. If we say yes He can, we are in turn saying God can create a situation which limits His own ability - i.e. that of lifting the stone, which by definition is too heavy for Him to lift - as this is the manner in which he created it.

As ridiculous as it seems, the question of whether God can do such logically impossible things, grabbed the attention of many atheist and christian philosophers alike (including St Aquinas).

The best response i have come across thus far is one by George Mavrodes, Professor Emirtus of philosophy at the university of Michigan.

His approach affirmed that of St Aquinas', and that is, that when one says "God can do anything", what qualifies as "anything" is that which is not self-contradictory - for it is only such things whose nonexistence might plausibly be attributed to a lack of power in some agent.

For example, my failure to draw a circle on my exam paper, may indicate my lack of geometrical skill, but my failure to draw a square circle does not indicate any such lack. Therefore to say that it is false to draw one does no damage to the doctrine of His omnipotence.

Taking all this into account therefore, the apparent dillema posed by the question of whether or not God can create a stone too heavey for Himself to lift, fails because it consists of asking whether God can do a self-contradictory thing, and the reply that He cannot does no damage to teh doctrine of omnipotence.

The psecious nature of the problem may be seen in this way. God is either omnipotent or He is not (as the atheist wishes to prove). Therefore to be significant, the assumption that God is omnipotent, must necessarily lead to a conclusion that he is not - that is the atheist must show that the assumption of Gods omnipotence leads to a reductio. However on the assumption that God is omnipotent, the phrase becomes self-contradictory, for it now becomes "Can He who is sufficient in lifting anything, create a stone to heavy for Himself to lift?". Therefore the fact God cannot do what is self-contradictory does not result in some lack of power in Him.

This then comes to the question of whether this in fact limits God to the rules of logic. But if we consider that God Himself is the expression of Logic - The LOGOS, then God is only being limited by Himself - for He is the standard and expression of absolute logic, thus He is not being limited by some external "thing". This is the view St Aquinas supported - however it is contrary to the view of St John Damascus who in fact taught that God is above thr ules of logic, and can therefore to do anything which to us is logically impossible. I think Aquinas' view is much more plausible....

[M.C. Steenberg]

The answer is that no, God cannot create a stone that He cannot lift.

INXC, Matthew

[Iqbal Youssef]

I think the better answer is, that to raise the question is irrational, and there can be no valid answer to an irrational question. Therefore the question neither poses a dilemma for the Christian concept of God, because of its inherently self-contradictory nature, and His omnipotence remains perfectly logically valid as a theoretical concept.

[Owen Jones]

One of the problems created unnecessarily, which then leads to various logical conundrums, is that of the existence of God. For Aquinas, God exists and is something that is subject to proof. For Orthodoxy, God does not exist. God is beyond existence. Beyond Being. Beyond the Beyond.

[Iqbal Youssef]

Hey Owen

Your argument that "God is beyond existence", is in fact an argument for the existence of God ;). Anselms ontological argument: "God is greater than that whicheth the mind can conceive, therefore God exists".

[Owen Jones]

Orthodox theologians, predominantly, perhaps universally, do not use the term existence applied to God. Therefore, they do not get into arguments regarding proofs of the existence of God because God does not have existence, whether of the Anselmian or Thomistic type of argument. One can always theorize that Orthodox theologians do not mean what they say, or that the words they use mean something the opposite of what they intended for them to mean.

[matt]

Owen's point is well taken. I remember Lossky describing the same 'approach' of St Dionysius. "Dionysius distinguishes between two possible ways. One- that of cataphatic theology- proceeds by affirmations; the other- apophatic or negative theology- proceeds by negations. The first leads to some knowledge of God, but is an imperfect way. The perfect way, the only way which is fitting in regard to God, who is of His very nature unknowable, is the second- which leads us finally into total ignorance. All knowledge has as its foundation that which exists. Now God is beyond all that which exists. In order to approach him it is necessary to deny all that which is inferior to Him, that is to say, all that which is. If in seeing God one can know what one sees, then one has not seen GOd in Himself but something intelligible, something which is inferior to Him. It is by unknowing that one may know Him who is above every possible object of knowledge. Proceeding by negations one ascends from he inferior degrees of being to the highest, by progressively setting aside all that can be known, in order to draw near to the Unknown in the darkness of absolute ignorance. For even as light, especially abundance of light, renders darkness invisible; even so the knowledge of created things, and especially excess of knowledge, destroys the ignorance which is the only way by which one can attain to God in Himself" (Mystical Theology, 25).

Maximus the Confessor writes, "negative statements about divine matters are the only ture ones" (Book of Ambiguities 20).And Gregory of Nyssa has the great line, "God's name is not known, it is wondered at" (Song of Songs commenary xii).

Now as Iqbal notes, the Catholic philosopher Anselm uses a similar approach (and yet also distincly different in its point of reference) in his ontological argument: "God cannot be conceived not to exist. God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived (aliquid quo nihil maius). That which can be conceived not to exist is not God." Fr Patrick Reardon, an insightful Orthodox commentator and author of Christ in the Psalms, comments upon the West's use of this concept in philosophy, writing, "If, as Aristotle wisely taught, understanding is the knowledge of things in their causes, then the principal of causality is the basis of understanding. And if the concept of God excludes his having a cause, then philosophy itself may speak of the incomprehensibility of God. Such a tautology is a characteristic of the standard cosmological arguments, such as Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, for example which becomes the Prime Mover in Maimonidies and the ens necessarium both of Avicenna and the THrid Proof of St Thomas Aquinas...But this consideration is still infinitely short of what Christian theology means when it calls the true and living God incomprehensible (akataleptos). Philosophy requires no special revelation to know that a tautology is logically inaccessable" (Reclaiming the Great Tradition).

God is unknowable because He reveals Himself as Unknowable, not because we cannot wrap our minds around God. The 'learned ignorance' of the Fathers of the East have given us so much by pointing to the revelation of God. Phiosophy may be agnostic, but it is an unknowing based upon the mind's limitation, a far distance from the Christian apophatic experience.

Iqbal, I would suggest Vladimir Lossky's "Mystical Theology of teh Eastern Church". You seem like someone who would really get a lot out of it. i think it is available free online. i can't remember the webpage, though.

MAtt

[James H.]

Matt,

When you say, "God is unknowable because He reveals Himself as Unknowable, not because we cannot wrap our minds around God." does that mean that theorhetically God could have made himself knowable to us to the point that we could "wrap our minds around Him". To ask "Can man wrap his mind around God?" or "Can we comprehend God?" seems to fit in the same category of irrational questions like "Can God make a rock He cannot lift?"

I'm really not trying to prove anything right or wrong, but I was confused by that last comment of yours. What did you mean?

James
b...t... L!

[matt]

James,

I am sorry that my post was confusing. You and I are on the same page, I think. Yes, if I had meant that God could have made himself knowable to us in the same way that we know each other or ourselves, then that would be putting God into our catagories of existence and knowing and could be the same as asking what squares smell like. It would be a total confusion of catagories. As Lossky and St PS.Dio remind us, God doesn't exist in any sense that we do, is neither contingent nor non-contingent etc.

But what i was trying to get at was that philosophy often speaks of our inability to know God as a lack on our part in terms of cognitive ability (especially pop philosophy and weak agnosticism do in their via negativa vulgaris, the pop-apophaticism), while the Orthodox affirm that God has revealed himself to us as unknowable.

This is the revealed unknowing, apophaticism, that also shows also that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and not like a father or a mother or a son or a daughter as mere metaphors. And this is something the Church needs to say more clearly to the intellectuals who come to the Church seeking answers and clarity. And again this is why the Eastern approach to God begins not with the essence, but with the apophaticism of the Father, who begets His Son and breathes the Spirit. We go from Person to essence. Most western approaches do the exact opposite and are lacking in their lived trinitarianism. This is a result of a practical extreme monotheism among many western Christians, almost a unitarianism. We must return to our doxologies for our understanding of the Father who dwells in unapproachable light, and then let our monotheism be informed by revelation and not philosophy, as hard as that might be.

James, did that clear anything up? No pun intended!

in Christ,
matt

[James H.]

Matt,

Thanks a lot. It honestly makes complete sense and I agree that the distiction you made is essential even if it seems like splitting hairs to others. Kudos to you!

James
btl

[M.C. Steenberg]

In an above post, Matt wrote:


As Lossky and St PS.Dio remind us...

That's the most brilliant abbreviation of pseudo-Dionysius I've ever seen. I may have to steal it, to confuse students.... http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Regarding Matt's last post, all wisdom is revealed.

Please bear with me. My mind is not my mind. If a thought comes to my mind that just happens to be true and wise, regardless of the subject, where does that come from? Have I created the thought? Does it only have to be a theological subject for it to be revealed? Is every other thing figured out by me, not revealed? When I use the terms "I" or "me," to what am I referring? Do I have a separate existence of my own in which God only impinges when He decides to make some theological point about Himself?

It seems to me that a more rigorous philosophical anthropology and theory of consciousness is required before any intelligent discussion can be had on theological subjects, without falling into a morass of contradictory statements.

[matt]

Indeed it is a fun abbreviation! And you can say it in so many different ways. But speaking if silliness and apophaticism, I heard the story of a fellow who was giving a lecture about apophaticism and the use of the double negative to speak in a positive way ("God is not unlike etc.."). The professor then went on to say that while the double negative is used in a postive way, there is no use for the double positive to indicate a negative, at which time a voice was heard from the back of the room, "Yeah, right!"

matt

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I have often found very helpful the translation & Intro of St Dionysios the Areopagite's Divine Names & Mystical Theology of John D. Jones published by Marquette University Press (1980). He especially translates the word hyperousios as applying to the Divinty as: 'beyond being'. He explains that for the Latins this is often seen as "superessential" (or the often heard word 'supernatural'). He writes, "These translations [ie of the west] presume that the divinity is a being...which surpasses every other being....These translations rest on a metaphysics which takes the divinty to be the being of beings which is the first, highest, and most real being (ens realissmum) existing in itself apart from other beings. Yet these translations and the understanding of the divinity on which they are based are fundamentally misleading; for the divinity is not a being!" In his own special way Mr. Jones then writes: "The divinity: beyond every way of being (beyond-beingly= hyperousios)."

This summer I read a wonderful book called In Peace Let Us Pray to the Lord: An Orthodox Interpretation of the Gifts of the Spirit. This book is written by a monk of Mt Athos- hieromonk Alexis (Trader). In the book Fr Alexis explains how knowing God is achieved through our life within the Church which is summed up by the holy fathers as the process of purification, illumination, glorification (ie deification). Thus we begin to know God through our efforts at purification- which is the struggle for humility & repentance. These however are not ends in themselves but only the means to attract the grace of the Holy Spirit & thus aquire the virtues which in the truest sense is the uncreated grace of God acting within us. It is interesting however that Fr Alexis then points out that that with the gifts of illumination "one can still fall into pride and thus become 'a sounding brass' or 'nothing'. The complete healing takes place with the vision of Christ in glory that grants perfect love which never fails and which St. Paul describes in 1Cor13:4-7: 'Love suffereth long, and is kind...'

This love, however, must not be confused with sentimentality nor with mere ethical perfectionism. It is rather the highest gift of the Holy Spirit. It entails man's complete self-emptying through keeping Christ's commandments to the point of the Cross being perfected in 'his face to face encounter with Christ' in glory through the Holy Spirit."

Thus by the 'unknowability of God' we refer I believe to the way & fashion in which God is truly known because of what He truly IS.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

Did I hear correctly that God is unknowable? St. Paul points to this inscription on an altar and proceeds to tell him about a "knowable" God who came in the Flesh.

From Closing the Western Mind, pg 149,

""Theophilus, the powerful patriarch of Alexandria, in 402, insisted on the Hebrew concept of God, "with eyes, hands and feet like men," and condemned Origen for preaching God was incorporeal.""
It says in the Masoretic Text at Ex. 15.3 "The Lord is a man of war". It is "IS". Can I wrap my mind around this? I surely can. I can imagine a "Man of war". Jeremiah speaks of God as a "Still, quiet, voice". Can I wrap my mind around a "Still, quiet voice". I sure can.

When Abraham was visited by three men at his tent, Was that not that the Trinity visiting the Patriarch of Faith, Abraham?

My God unknowable???? Not for me. Scripture paints a very good picture of him and then personally came down in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. Could we see Jesus. Can I wrap my mind around Jesus? Most certainly. Did not Jesus say, "If you seen me, you have seen the Father too". Most certainly. I am a country boy. A spade is a Spade.

[Cyril Shartz]

For those who wish to explore the implications in the Greek text of the "beyond" language in St. Dionysius (as mentioned in Fr. Raphael's post of Sept 9), here are some resources I have found useful. The term "hyperousios," though a frequent term in Dionysius, is only one of the most frequent--though important examples. Others can be found throughout the "hyper" section of the "Griechisches Register" at the end of second volume of the Corpus Dionysiacum edited by Beate Regina Suchla, Gunter Heil, and Adolf Martin Ritter. The Lampe and Sophocles lexicons of Patristic and Byzantine Greek provide good glosses for these terms (the Lampe lexicon, though it is the best modern Greek-English lexicon of Patristic Greek, is not altogether adequate for Dionysian studies, since many terms in the Greek text of Dionysius are not listed in it at all, so one is compelled to go back to the old [1870 or so] Sophocles lexicon).

There is a highly illuminating discussion of "hyper" language (among other linguistic strategies used in apophatic writing of several theological traditions) in an appendix of Mystical Languages of Unsaying by Michael Sells.

The "hyper" language of Dionysius--as well as other features of his conceptual system--is treated nicely in From Iamblichus to Erieugena by Stephen Gersh.

I am still working with these resources, but I have found them to be tremendously useful so far in my ongoing reading of Dionysius. I hope they will be of use to others.

[Owen Jones]

Aquinas considered Dionysius to be authoritative and said he could not write or say anything that did not conform to Dionysius.

[matt]

Owen, that is something I had remembered today and then there it was in your post!

[George]

>>From Closing the Western Mind, pg 149,

""Theophilus, the powerful patriarch of Alexandria, in 402, insisted on the Hebrew concept of God, "with eyes, hands and feet like men,"
>>

Huh? From my studies, the Hebrew concept of God was and is that He is the incomprehensible "Ein Sof", unknowable, ineffable.

[W. Lindsay Wheeler]

I have noticed a trend in Christianity in both Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy but now much more in orthodoxy. The growing need to over-intellectualize the faith. Christianity is not an intellectual exercise for elites. I have really come to believe that God started up Protestantism for the lower classes because apostolic Christianity has become so cerebral that they have left the simple folk out.

A "beyond" language---give me a break.

I have seen so many fallen away young Orthodox and instead of expending energy to correct what is failing, we are going on highbrow metaphysical journeys that have no practical application to the real world. It is no wonder that the Muslims are taking over the world and thousands of orthodox fall away every year and thousands of young orthodox boys don't even know what it means to be a man much less know anything of the faith while leaders go on academic binges with esoteric metaphysical byzantine forays into outer space.

I have also come to the realization of a type of gnosticism within Orthodoxy. A special language, special and elitist philosophy that leaves us low brow and low born out in the cold. You have to be an "initiated" elite to understand "REAL" christianity. Unless one has this training in this sacred obscure metaphysical language and knowledge one doesn't belong. One has to have a secret knowledge (gnosticism) in order to belong and understand "real" Christianity.


Really? Is this what Jesus wants? It is amazing to see Protestants at colleges with their bibles in hand quoting scripture while Orthodox people have beer cans in their hand partying all Saturday night. Protestants have 3000 people in one church, even a strong Orthodox church can't muster more than 200 and most arrive after the eucharist. You may be academically smart but the Protestant is winning souls to Christ.


I have eaten at protestant and Catholic soup kitchens, I have yet to eat at a single Orthodox soup kitchen.

[Owen Jones]

Criticism is always good for the soul, and unjust criticism even better.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Really Mr Wheeler, your criticisms have been directed at all Christians in all times! The True Faith is there for all to see as Christ Himself taught and then handed on to His apostles and then on through the Holy Fathers and the rest of the members of the Church.

That there is sin & brokeness is more than manifest. But the Church is not defined by the sin found in Her members but rather by the Life of Christ which is at work and usually in the very same people who are also sinners. So it depends what we look at- sin or Christ's grace. Do you blame the Church because of the fact that there is the world and its temptations? Do you know Mr Wheeler who Christ & Scripture say is to blame for the things you criticise? No- it is not the Church which is to blame, no neither is it my brother & sister who are to blame. As my spiritual father used to say to me when anything would go wrong, "it's your fault." Yes Christ says openly & unequivocally that we must blame ourselves for the sin we see and then we must humble ourselves and repent. Is this really different from the Bible the Protestants & Catholics read? No- I was raised United Church of Canada and converted to Orthodoxy through Catholicism- none of this is elitist, "beyond", or high-brow. Rather it is the simple though self-crucifying word of Christ.

Of course here at monachos you will meet many different people of many different types. And we are often trying to discuss complex theological or spiritual issues. So we often try to follow at least in words the models provided to us through the writings of the saints. If the language at times seems intimidating it is because we are trying to use the language and method of thought of those saints who lived in the angelic heights and so whose language has a theological intensity and exactness to it. None of this however denies the dazzling simplicity of the end point- a life in Christ.

Finally Mr Wheeler I would say that if you try to fulfill the Gospel of Christ with the simplicity that you appeal to I am sure that your opinion of us will become a little more positive.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

It strikes me that Aristotle and Aquinas are nothing if not highly complex and intellectual. Mr. Wheeler wnats a classical revival, but he points to protestants who would absolutely abhor such a notion these days. And as for the state of Roman Catholicism in the U.S. today, one has about a 60 or 70% chance of hearing a heretical sermon, and witnessing all kinds of liturgical monstrosities. That is something one will definitely not see in Orthodoxy in America.

Mr. Wheeler's criticisms are so contradictory that one can only surmise that there is some personal prejudice at work here. At any rate, one must distinguish between the simplicity of living a Christian life, and the complexity of reality. By complexity, the "classicists" don't mean complicated. They mean structurally complex. That is why, just to take one example, the Greeks had five different words for love. And why they all speak of a hierarchy of being, with God as Beyond Being.

But I really don't think Mr. Wheeler is interested in any of this. I think there is some personal animosity there that only he knows.

[James H.]

Mr. Wheeler, we are Orthodox. Nobody here apologizes for that. It is obvious to most people (if not everyone) here that your beef with Orthodoxy runs deeper than some differing perspectives on Theology. I don't go to a baptist forum and rant and rave about the fact that they are protestant and don't believe in Real Presence. I am sorry for whatever happened to you that made you become so disgruntled against the Orthodox Church. I will pray for you. Not that you become Orthodox, but just that you can have peace in your life. I would ask that everyone else here do the same... I'm sure many (holier than I) already have been. If you ever want to talk about what happened in a calmer manner I know for a fact that the people here would be caring and understanding (or even write someone in private). There are also other (less "intellectual" and more layed-back) Orthodox forums such as Christianforums.com (look under congregations and then "The Ancient Way - Orthodoxy"). Great people there. I'm sorry that I and others here have been less than respectful towards you in these last days. Please understand that you put us on the defensive and which often made me react in an imperfect human way. It may be natural but it is not an excuse.

God bless you sir,

James

[Christopher Encapera]

In a limited sense, I "feel Mr. Wheelers pain" if I may put it that way. For myself, being a highly logical person of philosophical bent, who demands exactitude in terminology, I have no doubt God has provided for me. He has done so in that the Holy Fathers are able to speak in such a way that for Mr. Weeler are unnecessary "esoteric metaphysical byzantine forays into outer space." (or should it be "inner space" ;). However, as someone said upstream there are "different types" of people. I wonder in what way I am failing men like Mr. Wheeler who demand a certain practical application, in the here and now, to his life and others around him. At the moment, I can only say that I wish I could assure him that these "metaphysical forays" are important to me (and others) and, I believe, have helped me to bend my will toward God. If he would understand that, perhaps he would be more generous toward them...

[AndyHolland]

For the hopelessly logical and tangible and simple, God has revealed Himself to us as Jesus Christ, and He directly bid us to handle Him for He is meek and lowly. God the Son is not unknowable in that sense, but we don't really know ourselves because people are a deep mystery - just as love is a mystery.

Yet we know love when we see love, and we know Jesus when we see Jesus.

Jesus proved the existance of God to modern man when he healed the blind man at Bethsaida and the fellow saw men as trees walking - textbook visual agnosia. He proved the existence of God when he calmed the wind and waves, because that is technically possible for a man if and only if He is God (does not require energy - requires Word however - chaous theory). He proved the existence of God when He cried out, My God my God, why hast thou forsaken me and proved the prophecy of Psalm 22 (21 LXX) to be true.

And God proves His existence every year at the Holy Fire, with the Holy bloom of Glastonbury and at a certain monastery where a certain star appears.

And God proves His existence in His Saints. He proves His existence when you open a sealed reliquary and smell and awesome fragrance not of this world. God proves His existence with weeping Icons.

God's grace accepts the reality that we need to handle Him and touch Him and see Him. There is plenty of real, tangible proof for doubting Thomases everywhere in every generation!

Perhaps the fathers did not argue existence because that was just too obvious for anyone who was seriously seeking God. But in this day and age, scientific material atheism is the 'heresy' and there is plenty of scientific 'proof' that the fathers were not perfectly correct in everything they taught in creationism, so modern man has found an excuse to avoid a god of smoting, wrath and pride made in our own sinful image.

So maybe we need to be arguing existence for the sake of those who do not believe because they are so well educated to not believe what they cannot see?

andy holland
sinner

[Kusanagi]

Christ is Risen!

It seams that this is a very good place to ponder questions. The same person who posed the question about "The Lineage of Christ" (see other thread) posed me this question too (NB this person was very anti-Religion and Christianity in particular, however he knew enough to 'justify' his unbelief in his own mind).

The question was as follows:



I posed this question in another forum and the only answer received was that this arguement presupposes that logic is above God which goes against the proposition that God is omnipotent. Is this the only arguement against this? Any ideas would be gratefully received.

With love in Christ

Alex

But God himself says he is perfect and there wont be another being that can be more perfect. If there is, did then it will go against the First commandment of having no other God but Him as He is a jealous God. Also God is limited by His righteousness i read a qoute once on a site about Muslim God and Chrtistian God.