God’s attributes and abilities
Aren’t the attributes that define God sometimes contradictory? Or too human?
For the sake of the matter, he is described as angry, and since he knows what will happen, he shouldn’t be angry (anger in the context of the surprise that he expected something different and then gets angry and “doesn’t understand” why they didn’t listen to him). Although if you define that he doesn’t know the future, then it’s not contradictory, but it seems that a lot of “abilities” are being removed from him. Even if he is not defined as omnipotent in the absolute sense of the word, the definition would be much more than just – he can do almost everything except for a few “marginal” things.
He cannot see into the future,
He cannot make himself disappear (assuming he is something infinite and indestructible)
He cannot regret things he does (assuming at least that he knows everything, so he should always make good choices).
Even in the moral context, there are contradictory qualities – if he is defined as someone who can prevent injustices and does not do so, then he is immoral, and if he cannot, then this too is among the other things he ‘cannot’.
In the human context throughout history, it seems that many human qualities have been shed from him (in the past he was portrayed as something huge, sublime, omnipotent, angry, happy, and sad).
It has become a much more abstract and obscure concept than ever before, making it extremely difficult to “work” with it. Simply put, it has no substance…
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The general conclusion is that this is an unclear concept and can be interpreted by all kinds of people, and this causes consequential errors. So if you already recognize something, the minimum is that it be well-defined. The question is complicated because the concept is complicated and must give several aspects (including the incorrect aspects in your opinion, because a large mass of society recognizes it like that, for example, a future-seeker) in order to try to grasp it. Regarding the condition of working with it, it is quite variable because it is possible to recognize it for the sake of the matter but say that it is not so relevant because it is not significant and clear enough, like the recognition of life outside of Earth, which is certainly reasonable, but at the moment it is not so possible to grasp it, so it is not relevant to practical life. The transition between something reasonable and logical (and this can also be argued about, but let's assume that it is very logical for the sake of discussion) to something very active, strong, significant, and relevant to practical life requires more, and the less it is defined, or the more it is defined (and each definition has references), the more we are left with nothing. Immediately... So what do you think about this? Where is the line between something reasonable and logical and something that can be recognized to such a level that I will live by that recognition? Assuming that this is indeed the case, it is not well defined.
You didn't answer me. What's the question? And why are you building a problem out of a collection of questions that have answers? I see no point in such a discussion.
All these questions have one common denominator that I explained - the concept of 'God' is not clear enough in my opinion. Everything around it is to understand the line of thinking and to show why I think it is not clear. And here is why. You don't have to relate to everything if you agree with me. You can skip to the part where you explain why you think, for example, it is strong and clear enough for me to act on that recognition. Or maybe relate to something specific in what I said and show that it is not true. But the main point that I also wrote in the title - abilities and attributes through which God can be defined to the point that it has a much greater and broader meaning. In my opinion, the less defined and specific something is, the more it can be used for many things. Then the concept we want to mean, which is God, expands and becomes something less specific and meaningful. Therefore, the side effect that happens to a lot of people is that they say, 'I don't know what God is.'
And I think the solution is to sharpen the concept and make it more precise (as much as possible)
“What else I don't understand is why knowing His attributes and the image we have of Him are a condition for His work”-
Regarding this, I wanted to add that knowing the attributes and the image we have of Him is not a condition for His work, not at all,
but that the -knowledge- itself is the condition for His work, meaning the condition for His work is that if a person first recognizes it, and if the -knowledge- is not well-founded, in our case knowing the basic attributes of God and His essence in general and His meaning at such a level that you understand what you believe in other than His being the Creator of the world is too general because it is possible to say that the Big Bang is the Creator of the world to a certain extent, for example…
And especially when it comes to knowing an entity that has such an impact on life, there is no symmetry between the level of recognition of it and the level of impact of that recognition.
And after I explained this whole process->The level of knowledge of God's attributes and abilities is> a condition for sufficient recognition>and is a condition for His work.
That is, the level of recognition in my eyes is lacking because of-
Contradictions in the attributes attributed to that entity
A too general definition
Failure to understand its basic capabilities
And in conclusion, one can ask why do you think the level of recognition of God is sufficient for me to act on it?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer