The Absoluteness of God
Why the Anthropomorphic Language Describing God in the Old Testament is Allegory
By Ranger
“Imagery was never intended to define God; rather, imagery is a window through which we see aspects and facets of the nature and character of God.” -- William Paul Young, “Lies We Believe About God”, p. 73, 2017.
God is absolute. I think it is difficult for the human mind to deal with the concept of absoluteness. We are much more familiar with those things that are relative. “Relative” and “absolute” are opposites. If something is relative, it exists on a scale and it is conceivable that it can be scaled up and scaled down. For instance, one person can run faster than another person. If something is absolute, it is not defined across a graded scale but is total.
Absoluteness is a part of our reality. The idea of “nothing” denotes something that is absolute. The null set contains nothing and that is without conceivable exception. But it is a philosophical concept, an abstraction that does not map well to anything we know experientially. Absoluteness, however, is not just an abstraction. Physicists regard the speed of light as absolute among other absolute physical constants. And also, the Bible tells us that God is absolute and we will turn to that next.
The Exegetical Argument for the Absoluteness of God
Those who point out that God is absolute are often criticized for not having supporting scriptures. People are skeptical because, I think, that God’s absoluteness is profoundly disturbing to many. It’s like a scenario where some guy lives in a cave all of his life. And at the age of forty or so someone tells him the cave is not the whole world and leads him to the surface. As they stand on the surface in daylight, he sees the boundless sky for the first time. Does he exult? No, I think he would be profoundly disturbed, maybe even terrified, and would want to immediately retreat to the enclosed security of the cave. Same scenario concerning God’s absoluteness.
God’s absoluteness is difficult for those atheists who see evolution as the driving force of the Cosmos. Hawking said, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing". That odd statement assumes the existence of gravity, gives no etiology of the Cosmic infrastructure, and is apparently the best that advanced cosmology can offer. The absolute God is the source of the non-evolutionary features of reality, such as existence itself, time, space, the organizational infrastructure (particles and sub-particles) of matter, and others.
So, here are some scriptures. It is important to point out that this is not a proof of God’s existence. That is a separate discussion. This is a logical, scripture-based argument that the Bible asserts an absolute God.
An exegesis:
“By the word of the Lord the heavens were made and all their host by the breath of his mouth.” (Psalm 33:6)
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1, KJV)
“By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” (Heb 11:3, ESV)
“All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” (John 1:3)
It is clear that the Bible asserts that God, the uncaused first cause, created all from nothing. If God created all things then there were no already existing things from which to fabricate the universe. If God had pre-existing substances, then he did not create all things and is not a creator but a fabricator. In Gnostic terminology, a fabricator is not God but a demi-urge. The Bible supports God as creator and not God as fabricator. God the creator then created all things from nothing as testified by scripture.
This means that God created and controls, in totality and without qualification, the created realm including our Cosmos, which is our objective reality. The created realm is his in all of its existential features. Reality does not operate outside his purview as its creator. He created our reality and has absolute possession of it. His complete possession of it does not exist on a scale of some sort. He doesn’t just happen to own the created realm more than others who might be co-owners, for instance. He is absolute.
To Define God by Anthropomorphic Language is to Portray Him as Relative and Deny is Absoluteness
Without a doubt, the Old Testament describes God in human terms. But such scriptures as Psalm 33:6 above tell us that this is not the full story. While there is no neat, cohesive exposition of God’s absoluteness in the Old Testament, we may understand it from the distributed data we are given.
Humans are relative beings. A man may be very strong because of superior musculature. Others may be stronger or weaker than the man. Power in our realm is relative. Some stars generate great energy and other stars lesser energy. A similar scale exists for intelligence. God created human powers and capabilities and they are relative. To say that God is “all-mighty” is the application of a human relative term to God. God may be seen as all-mighty through the lens of human relativity in order to make God more intelligible to humans but it is not a characterization of God in his ontology, his existential essence. God is absolute. Levels of power are meaningless to him. This kind of relative power that is relevant to humans is utterly irrelevant to God. He is not just the biggest kid on the block. And human beings will never be absolute like the uncreated God is. There is an ontological category difference between God and humans in spite of the sound bite “God as God is God.” But that is a separate discussion. The sales pitch to you that you are going to be God-as-God-is-God is a blatant fable. You are relative now and forever. As a created being you will rejoice forever in what God creates ex nihilo (Isaiah 65:18). You will not be a creator but rather a fabricator.
The rule is that if a descriptor is scalable, it is anthropomorphic and allegorical when applied to the absolute God. To accept the anthropomorphic language of the Old Testament as descriptive of God in his essence is to diminish him in the mind to being relative and a denial of his actual absoluteness.
A Remark on Poetry/Allegory in the Bible
I once heard from the Armstrongist pulpit that God rides on a cherub when he goes places. After all, in Psalm 18:10, it says:
“And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind.”
This text creates a dramatic picture in the mind, but it is poetry. It is not literally true but is a vivid word painting. It allegorizes God’s swiftness in coming to the rescue of Israel. One might argue that this statement is poetry because God is omnipresent and does not need to go from point A to point B (he is already at both points) and certainly not riding on a cherub – a parallel to human equestrian travel. But while the intentions of the argument are good, there is a problem with the appeal to omnipresence.
On careful consideration, the word omnipresent is a relative rather than absolute concept. Human beings may occupy place in space. Three coordinates can identify that place. But omnipresence means that God occupies all places in space. But what about God’s presence in non-spatial realms? So, omnipresence is just an intensification of the human ability to occupy a place in space. It remains a relative concept. But, in fact, God created space and is not bound by the three-dimensional coordinate system. Humans do not have good words to describe this idea. There is very little language of absoluteness in our daily talk. Writers of theology tend to use the term “transcendent” to capture those qualities of God that are beyond our human relative experience. And if we are careful with language, we must admit that God transcends such terms as omnipresence that are based on human relativity.
Summary Statement
Among those who are close readers of scripture, to believe that God as a relative being in essence is the ultimate lèse majesté. God is great beyond our knowing. We cannot plumb the depths of his absoluteness. Like “infinity”, absoluteness knows no limitations. Yet, we are made in his image. He has placed a little flame of his endless, brilliant fire in the small lamps that we are. No doubt many followers of God down through the ages have thought of him in relative terms rather than absolute terms without injury but also without a fitting appreciation of God. But for those who wish to consider, the horizon is dispelled and boundlessness enters in.
Note: I always marvel that when I write something that exalts God, it makes Armstrongists angry because what I have written does not conform to HWA’s declarations. It as if they have no ability to consider anything for themselves but always default to what HWA said. If God is anthropomorphic and relative like HWA has asserted, I would like to see a well-reasoned rebuttal to what I have written here – not just a collection of ad hominem attacks and inane sound bites.
94 comments:
But but but ...."the anthropomorphic language of the Old Testament as descriptive of God".... was inspired by God.
God is no absolute. The idea that God is absolute has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
Ranger has done an excellent job of explaining the absoluteness of God - a difficult task (and, unfortunately, one which will not be appreciated by most biblical fundamentalists and literalists). My own blog has attempted to introduce this concept of a God who cannot be contained to the folks who have shared my journey in Armstrongism. It makes these folks uncomfortable because they have grown accustomed to thinking of the Bible as absolute.
Scripture, however, has always been a joint enterprise between God and humans. As such, the Bible is an effort to make God and his plans more relatable/understandable to/for humans. As Ranger articulates in this post, it is very hard for humans to conceptualize that which exists outside of their reality - outside of the limitations which frame our existence on this small blue orb (which is just one solar system among hundreds of billions in a galaxy that is just one among trillions). In other words, how can anyone believe that a book that was co-authored by such limited beings could even begin to fully explain God and his plans.
This also explains why Scripture employs so much allegory, metaphor, analogy, symbolism, etc. It is meant to help us comprehend things outside of our reality. Christ used parables to both explain and obscure. And many of us understand that the garden, two trees, and the serpent portrayed in the book of Genesis point to things much more profound/meaningful that the symbols employed.
Likewise, we must not forget that God begins as a spirit hovering over the waters and a voice, and that Torah also portrays God as a burning bush and pilar of cloud and fire. Hence, as Ranger suggests, it becomes absurd to remake God into our image - reversing the account of man's creation in the book of Genesis. Even so, God is "big" enough to accommodate all of our petty notions and misconceptions about him. "He" understands the cognitive/intellectual limitations of the creatures "HE" created!
11:27
Yes, the anthropomorphic language was inspired or maybe in some cases permitted by God for teaching purposes and not for purposes of defining what he is in his essence. See the quote at the beginning by William Paul Young then read the following:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-transcendence-of-god-and.html
Ranger
Einsten proved that everything is relative. Are you smarter than Einstein? God cannot be absolute if even time and space are relative.
Miller wrote, "It makes these folks uncomfortable because they have grown accustomed to thinking of the Bible as absolute."
Very perceptive statement. It does seem that there is in some quarters a worship of the Bible rather than a worship of God. I like the following quote from Peter Enns:
"There's an irony: the passionate defense of the Bible as a "history book" among the more conservative wings of Christianity, despite intentions, isn't really an act of submission to God, it is making God submit to us." (Enns, "The Bible Tells Me So", p. 128)
I appreciate your comments.
Ranger
Yes, God created this whole physical universe.
However, before the creation of the physical universe, God did a whole lot more creating.
He designed and created His home, heaven, a spiritual creation, plus the creation of large numbers of spiritual beings.
Maybe with the creation of this vast spiritual realm, that was the time that God decided that creating a body for Himself made good sense to enjoy His creation in heaven.
It meant that He was in a particular place, while His spirit pervaded the entire spiritual expanse, and later the entire physical expanse as well.
If God were absolute he could not change, so he could not have become human and could not have died on the cross, and once dead, would have stayed dead.
God has given humans a God plain mind, so all this talk of limited humans not being able to comprehend God and His plans is nonsense. I suggest those with this point of view read up in concepts, i.e., categories minus (often) all the fine details.
There is nothing that concepts with sufficient information cannot comprehend.
God keeps changing. He grows in knowledge. So his knowldege increases. It is not absolute but relative to what he used to know. People should stop coming up with their own silly ideas that don't work.
First, just to be clear, I obviously meant to point out that this small blue orb was part of a solar system - which is one of hundreds of billions in the Milkyway...
Anonymous Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 5:46:00 PM PDT,
There are a number of places in Scripture which clearly state that God thinks on a MUCH higher plain than humans do. Yes, the Holy Spirit augments our understanding and gives us some insight into the mind of God. However, I very much doubt that you or I (or any of the other folks commenting here) have anything approaching the understanding of an Apostle Paul; and he told the Corinthians that his current understanding was imperfect - that we (Christians) currently see through a glass darkly. We do NOT currently have "sufficient" information to claim anything approaching a "God plain mind." A little humility please!
"Einsten proved that everything is relative. Are you smarter than Einstein? God cannot be absolute if even time and space are relative."
Anon Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 3:32:00 PM PDT
Congratulations, that has to be one of the stupidest comments I have ever read on this blog.
Nowhere in the Bible is God described as "absolute". Nowhere does God say of Himself "I am absolute". I am absolutely certain of that. So where does that idea even come from?
Never has it been more clear than in these comments that Armstrongism isn’t even a type of Christianity in any meaningful sense. Pretty shocking, really.
Was thinking of you other day, Ranger. An article popped up about ancient Israelite DNA being sampled from a burial. Haplogroup J2.
RSK
Thanks for the comment. The case against British-Israelism and actually the entire racial legendarium of Herman Hoeh is going to become stronger and stronger. The data is in the ground and will be excavated and analyzed for other scientific purposes but British-Israelism will be an unintended casualty. And the advocates of British-Israelism will beome less and less credible on theological topics broadly.
The great proof against British-Israelism is that the theory predicts that there should be a rich presence of haplogroup R1b (Western Europe) in the archaeogenetics of the area belonging to the Ten Tribes. And this is not present.
Ranger
4:49 wrote: "If God were absolute he could not change, so he could not have become human and could not have died on the cross, and once dead, would have stayed dead." As absolute, as the Creator of the realm we inhabit, it is understood that God has the ability to operate both within and outside of it. This ability effects no change in the nature of God.
In the epistle to the Hebrews, we read: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (13:8) In the book of Malachi, we read: "I am the Lord, and I do not change." (3:6) In other places in Scripture, we are told that God inhabits past, present, and future - the One who is, was, and is to come. Once again, as the one who created time and space, God exists both within those concepts and outside of them. They do not change or effect "his" nature.
6:36 wrote: "God keeps changing. He grows in knowledge." From a human perspective, this statement is true. However, from God's perspective, this is meaningless. If God is truly Omnipotent and Omniscient, then EVERYTHING is automatically known to him and at "his" disposal.
Cory said: "Nowhere does God say of Himself 'I am absolute.'" Then what do you think God meant when he told Moses "I AM WHO I AM"?
As for the notion, that our minds operate on the God plain - consider the following: In the book of Isaiah, we read: "'My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,' says the Lord. 'And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.'" (55:8-9) Also, we read that God told Samuel (a man who had God's Spirit), "The Lord doesn’t see things the way you see them. People judge by outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart." (I Samuel 16:7) Also, in Isaiah, we read: "To whom will you compare me? Who is my equal?" (46:5)
Questeruk wrote, "Maybe with the creation of this vast spiritual realm, that was the time that God decided that creating a body for Himself made good sense to enjoy His creation in heaven."
I know you are thinking about God and that is a good thing. But let me mention an issue with the logic of your idea. God is great and there is nothing greater. (I am using colloquial human language. "Great" is actually a relative term but it communicates to us humans well.) But you are saying that God created for himself a state that made him greater than what he was. God cannot create something greater than himself - something that improves on his condition. There is no improvement to be had. Absoluteness cannot be improved on. If there were improvement to be had then God did not originally occupy the status of great with nothing greater. You conjecture is a type of lèse majesté argument that runs throughout Armstrongism.
Ranger
Anon 6:36 wrote, "God keeps changing. He grows in knowledge. So his knowldege increases. It is not absolute but relative to what he used to know. People should stop coming up with their own silly ideas that don't work."
This is a typical Lèse Majesté Argument found in Armstrongism. These arguments are paired with the God-as-God-is-God arguments that assert that humans will one day have the full ontology of God. If it were a fully developed and intentional argument, it would be blasphemous. But it is just a naive, inept argument.
The form of this argument that I find most dramatic was given by Herman Hoeh at a ministerial conference last century. He stated that God could not create Adam without experimentation. God first built models as he tried to engineer Adam. These engineered models, which were failures to achieve full Adamic stature, constitute the pre-Adamic humans found in the fossil record. Hoeh stated that God is like humans - he must engineer using models as human engineers must do. A serious error in understanding.
God is the same yesterday, today and forever. God does not learn knowledge. He creates knowledge. "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the Cosmos." He creates reality. "For in him we live, and move, and have our being."
Ranger
Cory Haffly wrote, "Nowhere in the Bible is God described as "absolute". Nowhere does God say of Himself "I am absolute". I am absolutely certain of that. So where does that idea even come from?"
Nowhere in the NT does Jesus state explicitly that he is God. Yet, my guess is that you believe that. The fact that Jesus is God is deduced from a collection of scriptures that do not portray Jesus as voicing this. This is the same approach that leads to an understanding of the Holy Spirit and to God's Absoluteness.
Apparently, you did not read my essay because it contains an exegesis from Biblical scripture. That's where this idea comes from. It is not good form to just read the title and dash out a comment.
Ranger
5:46 wrote, "God has given humans a God plain (sic) mind..."
I agree with Miller's reponse to this comment.
God has created us in his image. I think this means we have a resemblance to God in many different dimensions. We have minds that resemble God's mind and this makes the Cosmos intellgible to us. This does not mean we have minds that are identical in capability with God's mind.
In a passage from Isaiah that deals with the New Heavens and New Earth, God states, "But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create..." We will not be creators. This is one area where are minds fall short of God's mind. We will instead rejoice in those things he creates. Not just for some transition period but "forever".
I know that Armstrongism asserts that humans are destined to become God-as-God-is-God. This I think is the support for the many Lèse Majesté statements that Armstrongists make. They assert that God is like a human, God is comprehensible and God is just the biggest kid on the block - but not really different from us. I recall one Armstrongist minister talking about this from the pulpit and asserting that one day the difference between us and God would just be "this" and he held up his fingers showing a little gap between forefinger and thumb. This is all naivete. Sounds good in the theological informality of Spokesman Club but has no other merit.
In fact, there is a category difference between us and God. He is uncreated and we are created.
Ranger
Ronco wrote, "God cannot be absolute if even time and space are relative."
You argument is of the logical form:
"If time and space are relative, then God is relative."
You need to provide a logical argument that supports this conclusion. It does not stand by itself. It is a foundationless assertion. It is like stating, "If the sky is blue, then God cannot be eternal." You should start, maybe, but rebutting the exegesis I provided in my essay.
Ranger
Good article. We can argue about the meaning of words, but the bottom line is that we are physical and we live in a physical world. Of necessity (because we cannot see "the other side"), we tend to create God in our image. Ranger and others merely try to get us to expand our brains a bit and admit our human inability to see what- by God's design- we cannot see. Simply put, we are only able to use what we do know (our universe) to try and describe something we don't know (God's "reality", if that is even the right word). It is the best we humans can do, and that is OK because that is how God made us. Relax :)
I think you misread my post, Ranger.
It occurs to me from some of the comments that the problem is the Armstrongite mind has been contained!
Cory Haffly wrote, "Nowhere in the Bible is God described as "absolute". Nowhere does God say of Himself "I am absolute". I am absolutely certain of that. So where does that idea even come from?"
Try Ex 3:14, 1Sam 15:29, Isa 43:10; 44:16, Mal 3:6, Heb 13:8, Rev 1:17 & 21:6 for starters.
An astute observation 11:16 - this requires entertaining the possibility that Almighty God is much grander than anything they've heretofore imagined.
Ranger said, regarding my comment:-
"Let me mention an issue with the logic of your idea. God is great and there is nothing greater. But you are saying that God created for himself a state that made him greater than what he was."
No, its your logic that is at fault Ranger. I was not saying that at all. I am saying that God changed things to that which was expedient to the situation. I am saying to interact with His heavenly creation, both the environment and the spiritual beings He had created it would seem that God found it expedient to have a shape and form. That doesn't mean it was better or superior. It was different, and God judged that it better fitted the situation that He had created!
When Christ came to earth as a human, it was expedient for Him to have a physical body. That doesn't mean that it was superior to his Spiritual form - in fact it clearly wasn't.
On a physical plain, mankind can produce things that can do specific things better than a person can. A car can get you to a distant place quicker than a human could by walking - that doesn't make the car superior to the person. There are literally hundreds of other examples. A human can wear an aqualung to breathe underwater. That doesn't make the person superior to how he was without the aqualung, its an expedient thing to do if diving underwater, and you wouldn't be wearing the aqualung when you are walking up the road to go shopping.
Yes, Lonnie, their concept of God was taught to them by HWA, and is based on the way he defines the various Bible verses according to the nuances of his own personality. His limitations were passed to us and became our limitations, which quite frankly is ALWAYS a given when you have a human teacher.
Another factor that people never seem to consider is that when choosing a family doctor, an accountant to do your taxes, or an attorney, when these professionals went through their educational processes, some of them got A's, B's, and C's, yet all still graduated and obtained their credentials. The same thing is true of their ministers. Just because one is a minister does not mean that all of them are uniform in education, IQ, and level of experience! Yet, it was an unspoken law that one could not rise above HWA, or for that matter, one's regional manager.
You and I both know that my paragraph 2 is 100% accurate and true, but hopefully it will open others at least to consider the possibility. It's not as if it were somehow blasphemous to realize that about one's minister.
Miller wrote, "...this requires entertaining the possibility that Almighty God is much grander than anything they've heretofore imagined."
The God of Armstrongism seems to have the following characteristics.
1. He is relative and not absolute.
2. His command of space is human-like. He must locomote from point A to point B via cherub. So, he is not omnipresent.
3. He lives in the "sides of the north." So he lives inside the Cosmos. He lives in time and space. My guess is that he does not transcend the Cosmos.
4. He is not omniscient. He does not know the future.
5. He is dependent on a body and its functional mechanisms. So, he is not a necessary being. He has to have ears to hear and a nose to breath air.
6. He is not categorically different from his created sentient beings so they may become God-as-God-is-God.
7. He may not be significantly omnipotent. Humans who become God-as-God-is-God may be nearly as powerful as he is. Also, he has racial properties that may make him the God of some people more than others. He falls short by nature for those people who are not of his race.
This is clearly not the Christian God. I do not think that HWA set out to formulate a God who is inferior to the Christian God. I think the concept of God evolved in Classical Armstrongism based on many different influences. There seemed to not have been a coherent doctrine of God where all of Gods properties might be considered systematically and comprehensively.
Ranger
3:35
Interesting perspectives you write.
However, none of it is what I was taught, nor discussed in, or out of the WCG. These are primarily your attempt to interpret what you think was foundational to WCG teaching, but actually do not understand.
Just one thought. If the Father doesn’t know the future how could He inspire prophecy? Yet., HWA, WCG, etal taught Biblical prophecy was real. How could that be if according to your interpretation?
Do you not know all Scripture is inspired by ———? You fill in the blank.
5:56 wrote, "However, none of it is what I was taught, nor discussed in, or out of the WCG."
You will not find a discussion of several points listed in my statement in Armstrongist documentation. I never heard anyone discuss some of these issues from the pulpit. There just was not a cohesive presentation of a Doctrine of God in Armstrongism.
Point 1 above, for instance, is deduced from the Armstrongist belief that God had a body. A body means he had a form that has an extension into space. This means his body has location.
And this means he did not have an absolute relationship to space but an relative one, as we do.
God created space. We all have out being and movement within God (Acts). That means space is within God.
You will find none of the reasoning I just laid out in any Armstrongist documentation. In my many years in Armstrongism, nobody ventured into any of these ideas. There are similar reasoning paths for the other points.
You assert that I do not understand these ideas. In reality, there was no understanding to be had. Just unfounded statements scattered in literature and spoken from the pulpit. These are not so much interpretations as deductions. If you can find me a cohesive and commperehensive doctrine of God from pre-1995 WCG literature, I would like to see it.
Ranger
In his magnum opus, Mystery of the Ages, Herbert Armstrong wrote:
In Genesis 1:26, “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” We know the form and shape of man. That is the image, likeness, form and shape of God. In various parts of the Bible, it is revealed that God has a face, eyes, a nose, mouth and ears. He has hair on his head. It is revealed God has arms and legs. And God has hands and fingers. No animal, fowl, bird, fish, insect or any other kind of life we know of has hands like human hands. Even if any other living being of which we know had a mind to think with, without hands and fingers he could not design and make things as a man does. God has feet and toes and a body. God has a mind. Animals have brains, but no mind power like man’s. If you know what a man looks like, you know what is the form and shape of GOD, for he made man in his
image, after his very likeness!
Wasn't somebody just complaining that no positive alternatives are being extended for the benefit of those whom this site educates away from the mindset known as Armstrongism?
Our accuser must not be seeing articles such as this one, or Lonnie's dissertations.
You guessed wrong. I don't believe that Jesus is God. Jesus is always only described as the Son of God, and also the Son of man. You can't be the Son of someone and also be that same someone at the same time. As Mr. Spock would say, illogical.
Yes, I did read your essay and I understand exactly what you are trying to say. You are wrong. A person cannot be a son of someone and also be that same someone. We would never say that about an ordinary human being, but somehow we suspend the logic for Jesus? You'll have to explain that like I'm five years old.
Cory wrote, "You'll have to explain that like I'm five years old."
OK. Your assertion is that Jesus cannot be God and the Son of God at the same time. You have to recognize that God refers to a single divine person or a class of divine persons. This is the calculus of the Trinity. The Father is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Yet, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all referred to at times under the title "God." And that is not incorrect because they exist as a unity as well. Many times in the NT the term "God" may refer to the Father. Sometimes it is difficult to tell if the context gives no clues. But it does not alter the message being given.
Jesus is an individual God being who belongs to the God class. So he is both Jesus and God. And as Jesus he has the role of the Son of God. The idea that the term God refers to both individuals and a class is compatible with the Bitheism of Armstrongism abd the Binitarianism of the Church of God Seventh Day as well as the Trinity of Christianity.
Ranger
5:56
I stated in 3:35, "He (the Armstrongist God) does not know the future."
I would like to retract that statement. I found a statement by HWA that God knows the future through subjectivevly planning it and then creating it moment by moment. I also found a statement in the 1965 Bible Correspondence Course that God created time but it is not clear if he created it ex nihilo or if he just organizes it - that is he creates a calendar. These views are unorthodox but they are enough for me to issue a retraction until I study further.
These are scattered statements and I do not believe there is any integration of these views into a cohesive dotrine of God. In fact there is a serious problem with these unintegrated ideas. The idea that God has a body and lives in "the sides of the north" is in dire conflict with the idea that he created time. (I recall GTA saying on the broadcast that if you had a rocket ship, you could fly to where God lives, given enough time.) The fact that the integration was never addresed leaves a confusion of various inconsistent statements.
Ranger
Ranger, thanks for your retraction.
I was thinking of posting a separate post for each of your comments in your numbered post. Primarily to show that you seem to deduce things which are not compatible with what was actually taught before your time. If I did post about your comments I believe you might make more retractions.
One thing I have found recently is that “science” is now teaching how the Father actually works His way, but not acknowledging the new information as pertaining to a divine being. It is only explaining “science”. This information, I now believe, refutes the idea that Elohim cannot have a body because that would limit Him.
Actually what you seem to teach is much more limiting. By saying or implying He CANNOT have a body gives credence to the atheist argument that He does not exist. How? By answering the age old silliness of the atheist BIG question. I.e. “Can G-d make a rock so heavy He can’t lift it?”
You, Lonnie, and a couple others have answered their question for them. How?
Well, if He can’t make and use a BODY for Himself, He certainly can’t lift such a rock, or even create one. Why? Because if He can’t make a body, He is limited and not omniscient, all powerful, etc., ergo, NO god.
It would be nice to have presented how HWA and the WCG actually understood these things your bring up versus what you and some others think is what was meant by reading scattered comments.
Maybe I will post some of the scientific descriptions I mentioned above with how they actually explain how Elohim is not limited in any way. That would make it easier to see why Elohim can, and does have a body, and is still all powerful.
Of course, probably not much interest here, right?
I think we've always had those. They pop up sometimes and whine about it, but never seem to create their own sites.
Ranger has done a fine job of wrestling with the amorphous mess that was Herbert Armstrong's theology. That it is hard to get a handle on Herbie's teachings regarding the nature of God (and a host of other topics) was deliberate/intentional on his part. His views were so unorthodox that they required wiggle room (and a lot of it). This is precisely why he was so opposed to any attempts to systematize the theology of the Worldwide Church of God. He did NOT want to ever be pinned down! This also accounts for the wide variety of beliefs among the various splinters of the original - all claiming to perpetuate Herbie's theology. It's like trying to nail diarrhea to the wall!
Anthropomorphism and absoluteness are entirely different subjects and in no way overlap.
Quality of belief (if not intensity) is determined by the quality of one's references or sources. People affected by the Armstrong phenomenon certainly have become painfully aware of this. In our discussions, it is not unusual to being introduced to elements of ancient secular histories, the linguistics and specific meaning of words from dead languages, archaeology, the writings of the wise men who were curators of the ancient scrolls, the Talmud itself, the discoveries which come from our increased knowledge of the sciences and laws of physics and nature, and in a peculiar sort of way, our recollections of what might have been taught by Herbert W. Armstrong during our particular era.
We must remember that Herbert W. Armstrong was famous for having answers for everything, and he spoke authoritatively on every topic which came up, even when it is obvious that he knew nothing about the topic at hand. To rely on ol' Herb is to have a very questionable quality of resource. Ranger has at least taken the time to research the written records. Relying on one's memories of what might have been taught by HWA prior to his broken record era (Two Trees) is perhaps the very worst reference or resource. Just about the only one I might be inclined to trust in that regard would be Pastor Richard, of the LoFCOG, who still has all his sermon notes from the 1960s.
To bash the Armstrong concept of God is dumb when in fact many of those "Armstrong" concepts of God are shared by billions outside of Armstrongism. Just another cheap ad hominem argument. Attacking Armstrong on an anti-Armstrong site is easy and gets clingons who chip in and follow along but in no way to proves any theological point about God.
I've already expressed my God-theology on other threads. I am a panentheist and believe that God created everything around us, the entire universe, using Himself as the building materials.
You are seeing everything on this site through a peculiar set of goggles, my friend, and only finding what you are looking for.!
Saul Goodman
10:11 You hit the nail on the head.
The critics here have a very biased distortion of the things they complain about. Instead of doing a deep wide research, they stick to a very narrow resource. That is rumor, complaints, hearsay, ad infinitum.
HWA mentioned many resources from his studies. Yet, it seems on the surface that the critics never bother to mention them. And, what is really funny is that many of them were scholars who were Christians of standard faith teaching. And, as HWA gained a larger audience the standard Christian’s started saying their own scholars weren’t so great after all, because they supported certain doctrines that were not “Christian.”
For example, Bullinger, Newberry, and others. Go figure.
Not counting the many lexical aids like Vines, and Hebrew and Greek grammars, standard commentaries, the Catholic encyclopedia. In fact one of the proof texts for not keeping birthdays was the Catholic ency. Which said the early Christians did not celebrate birthdays.
What is even funnier is how Lonnie, Ranger and others, make statements about what HWA was thinking or planning to deceive. One might conclude they were/are mind readers, for they would have to be to make such statements.
Then, on top of that to conclude how poor memory is to carry on accurately what was taught then, is nothing more than a lazy person’s excuse to ignore what goes against their “authoritarian” criticisms. Typical atheistic responses, in order to minimize the naysayer and imply the opponent is too dumb to know.
Be careful Friday, just in case!
8:28
God does not have a body. If he had a functional body (not just a theophany), it would be limiting for him.
I would like to see your rebuttal of this. Before you bring anything to the table, read this. This is the kind of argument you are going to run into:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-transcendence-of-god-and.html
Ranger
10:11 wrote, "...many of those "Armstrong" concepts of God are shared by billions outside of Armstrongism."
Hardly. HWA's Doctrine of God has similarities to what the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons believe.
Ranger
If you look up "absoulte" in a dictionary, you will see that some of the usages pertain to God (or some particular view of God) while others do not. The blanket statement "God is absolute" is meaningless since both "God" and "absolute" mean many different things. It's a slogan. Propaganda. Somebody is using the slogan "God is absolute" over and over to hammer a message into people's minds. They attach some idea to the slogan then repeat it until the idea becomes indoctrinated in people and the word "absolute" takes on a new meaning. This is propaganda, not theololgy, and it is certainly not scholarship.
10:05 wrote, "Anthropomorphism and absoluteness are entirely different subjects and in no way overlap."
Read Miller's comment at 9:11. A God who has a non-theophanic, functional body as his essential ontology, as HWA asserts, must leave point A in space in order arrive at point B. That is because a body is an extension in the 3 dimensions of space and has location. He also requires some element of time to move from A to B. So he is limited in time.
If God is limited to a location, he does not have absolute control of all of space. As an anthropomorph he must move around in space like a human would. And his control then has locus and is relative rather than absolute. This is how absoluteness and anthropomorphism interact.
The conundrum. Jesus is fully God and fully man. He is God and yet has a body. He did not possess the body as a part of his essence but acquired a body through the Incarnation. I do not know how this works. We are not told in the Bible how this works. My guess is that Jesus is not limited by his resurrection body. But I think his human side must be somehow ontologially subordinate. But I don't know that. We will have body's in the resurrection. But we will not be God. We will be only partakers of the divine nature. Jesus is a new category of being. He bridges between God and man. It is a mystery.
Ranger
1:10 wrote, "HWA mentioned many resources from his studies."
Having many resources does not make him somehow right. He may have had many resources yet he developed an odd and untenable theology. People in the schools of theology have access large volumes of printed matieral - I would guess much more than HWA ever had - if we want to use sources as a yardstick.
HWA did have some beliefs that were on target. For instance, he believed that Jesus is God unlike many in the predecessor Adventist and Church of God Seventh Day Movements where Arianism had made significant inroads. To them, Jesus was a created being. Some correct elements but the Armstrongist package as a whole doesn't stand up.
Ranger
Ranger wrote: God does not have a body. If he had a functional body (not just a theophany), it would be limiting for him.
Ranger, and you know this how? Other than from men who come up with this philosophy, many who do not believe the Bible. And, who do not want to believe the Bible is other than a woo-woo book written by men on a high.
By default Elohim is limited by what you present. In fact, you are saying He has to be and do what you and other fallible men require. By the way, He is not controlled by, nor designed the image of men . But, you and others say He is, and this teaching turns the Bible into a set of lies.
Ranger, ah yes, the great Neo article. I thought there was a connection with what you write and Neo. Same philosophy..
It is as Herbie used to say: "One convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." As for sources, YES, Herbie loved to name drop the classics which he perused in his INTENSIVE six-month long study at the local library. The Amrstrongist commentators here who have been critical of the thesis of this post are no doubt sincere, but many of them appear to be very ignorant of Herbie and his teachings and without extensive experience within the old Worldwide COG. If you are going to attempt to defend Herbie's notions about the nature of God, one would think that - at a minimum - one would familiarize themselves with his writings (especially his Autobiography, The Incredible Human Potential, and Mystery of the Ages). Unfortunately, there isn't any Herbie-approved statement of belief or STP to reference (Herbie made sure that that never happened). Incidentally, I'd like one of them to address that - Why do we not have a comprehensive statement of Herbert's theology?
Also, in the criticisms of this premise, I don't see a single person who has addressed a rationale for the presence of other theophanies in Scripture - You know, the ones where God doesn't appear in human form. Come on you Armstrongist apologists, what about that burning bush, the pilar of cloud and fire, the booming disembodied voice, the whisper, the amorphous Spirit, the angels, etc.? If God is confined to a human-like body, then how and why did he present to humans in all of those other manifestations? And, as has been noted here and elsewhere before, humans have eyes, noses, hands, feet, breasts, genitals, hair, etc. for biological reasons (seeing, breathing, grasping, walking, feeding infants, reproducing, protection, etc.). Are you suggesting that God needs eyes to see? Does God breathe? Does God need hands to make things? Does "he" need legs and feet to walk? Does God have a penis or vagina? And, if God does need all of these physical components of the human body to function, who designed them and what function or purpose do they serve on the Divine plane?
Finally, the literalist-fundamentalist view of Scripture is unsustainable and makes a mockery of the truth behind the rich symbolism, allegories, and metaphors contained therein. The Bible was to be used for the things that the Apostle Paul told Timothy that it was intended to be used for. It was never meant by God to be a textbook for the study of science, history, or geography. The Bible was intended to be a resource for God's people to use in developing a better understanding of God and his will for us - a spiritual resource for our walk with God - NOTHING ELSE! God is the FINAL authority, and Jesus Christ is THE TRUTH and the exact representation of the Divine - not a book co-authored with fallible humans (God's Spirit has never made any human infallible, even in matters of faith). Literalists and fundamentalists LITERALLY turn the Bible into an idol - in place of Almighty God. Remember, we are supposed to rightly handle the word of truth - NOT fashion it into an idol (I believe that is characterized as idolatry and blasphemy in Scripture).
2:57 write, "By default Elohim is limited by what you present."
What I write about God does not define him as "limited." Quite to the contrary, it is the Armstrongist God that is much smaller and more limited than the God of Christianity. If you have a God with a nose that must breathe something gaseous to survive like HWA's God, then that God is contingent on something. The Christian God is not contingent but necessary.
Ranger
Miller 4:15
Bravo!
Ranger
It seems necessary for some to deny literalism so they can wax eloquent about how great they are at interpreting the vagueness of metaphors. This lets them make it up as they go along and seem profound in the process.
Why don't we just say Jesus was a phantom, or that he was a methaphor, and be done with it?
2:47 wrote, "Ranger, and you know this how? Other than from men who come up with this philosophy, many who do not believe the Bible."
Once again:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-transcendence-of-god-and.html
The "philosphy" that you refer to is known to the world as Christianity. And the men who received this understanding had a profound belief in the Bible, in some cases unto death.
Ranger
Lonnie, nice baseless justification of things you assume.
You are presenting an argument that was not said, and then attacking your argument as if that was what was taught.
Look, there is no problem with the burning bush event. Elohim can use whatever He wants to communicate to humans. He is after all the Creator of all things and has no limits.
Who said that using a body forbade Him from using a burning bush? Messiah had a body after He rose from the grave, and then apparently walked through the wall to get to the disciples. Then one of them stuck his hand into His side.
After all the Father IS spirit.
What a question, Who created His body? Simple, only He could decide to appear any old way He wants. He is not limited.
No one is trying to make the Bible into an idol, except those who wish to make others look stupid by saying such nonsense. You are the one claiming that, a false accusation.
This statement by you is just your perception to excuse the weakness of your presentation. “ Finally, the literalist-fundamentalist view of Scripture is unsustainable and makes a mockery of the truth behind the rich symbolism, allegories, and metaphors contained therein. The Bible was to be used for the things that the Apostle Paul told Timothy that it was intended to be used for. It was never meant by God to be a textbook for the study of science, history, or geography. The Bible was intended to be a resource for God's people to use in developing a better understanding of God and his will for us - a spiritual resource for our walk with God - NOTHING ELSE! God is the FINAL authority, and Jesus Christ is THE TRUTH and the exact representation of the Divine - not a book co-authored with fallible humans (God's Spirit has never made any human infallible, even in matters of faith). Literalists and fundamentalists LITERALLY turn the Bible into an idol - in place of Almighty God. Remember, we are supposed to rightly handle the word of truth - NOT fashion it into an idol (I believe that is characterized as idolatry and blasphemy in Scripture).”
The Bible IS NOT AN IDOL, IT IS THE WORD INSPIRED BY THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IN THE KNOWN AND UNKNOWN UNIVERSE.
Your comment belittling the Bible by claiming it is co-authored by fallible humans is ludicrous and frankly, made by a fallible human being to uphold a weak and false premise. Who chose those humans to be involved in the first place. The One who INSPIRED it, don’t cha’ know?
Thanks for the attempt.
6:44 wrote:
"No one is trying to make the Bible into an idol, except those who wish to make others look stupid by saying such nonsense. You are the one claiming that, a false accusation."
Very funny! Biblical literalists (like Armstrongism) have made the Bible an idol alongside the 10 Commandments, holy days, and Herbert Armstrong. Take any of those away and watch the spittle fly.
While the Bible certainly is inspired, it is also an idol for far too many in Armstrongism, the JW's, and Adventists.
Let me make a clarification. The question is not simply "Does God have a body". It is more than that. Of course, God can have a body if he wants to. He appeared to Job as a whirlwind.
The whirlwind was a theophany. The question is "Does God have a body IN HIS ESSENCE?" - that is in his essential existential state. HWA believed that God has a body in his essential existential state. Christians and some branches of Judaism believe that he does not have a body in his essential existential state.
Second point: If God has a body, is it functional or is it just a theophany - an appearance - a vision - maybe a data feed to our minds and senses. HWA believed that God had a FUNCTIONAL body in his ESSENCE. He functionally breathes through his nose and makes things with his hands. This is both illogical and absurd. I can't make the argument in this small space. The argument has already been made earlier:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-transcendence-of-god-and.html
The only issue that really remains unanswered is what is Jesus like in his resurrection state. He acquired a body by means of Incarnation. And we do not understand Incarnation. Does this make him lesser than he was before his Incarnation? Is it now a part of his personal ontology or is it something else. I cannot envision a reason why a spirit being who knows the freedoms of absoluteness would want to adopt the limitations of a body. So I think it is likely that Jesus' human body is not a limitation. But these things are a mystery and we can't know them in this flesh.
Ranger
6:55 thanks for your misconception, it’s very funny.
No one I knew, or know today, bows down to pray saying “O great almighty Bible, please hear my prayer and provide our daily bread. Thank you oh merciful book.
Nor, burns incense to it. Nor bow every time the Bible is passed. Etc.
That claim is laughable and ludicrous at best.
This nonsense is nothing but a distraction and diversion to get away from what the Bible is. It is the book sanctioned by the Father in heaven. Your definition of the Bible being an idol because people actually believe what Elohim says to do in the book is not rational.
Just another way to try and discredit the book. You can’t gain anything by continuing with this charade.
Well, clearly, somebody is not reading their Bart Ehrman!
We always were taught in Ambassador Club that making a shocking statement at the opening of one's speech is sure to get max attention. However, telling an Armstrongite that his religion is being practiced to such an extreme that he has in effect made an idol out of the Bible is not effective as a tool to awaken him. Rather than stimulating introspection, the statement prompted indignance.
What I do know is that many of us certainly did have our "Ah, Aha!" moments when our personal studies of the Gospels caused the scales to fall from our eyes as we thought, "Wow!!! We are just like the Pharisees!"
6:55 you, and others, certainly have a silly understanding of what an idol is. The problem is critics can’t understand the book, can’t follow what it teaches, and cannot refute what the Bible says when believers quote what it says. So, their only fall back is, it’s an idol, and it is too anthropomorphic for ignorant people to understand.
So, keep using your idolatry gig, and anthropomorphic theophany prognostications,it goes nowhere. Oh, and above all don’t forget antidisestablishmentarionism. There is a philosophical perk in there somewhere
Oh, here’s one you can add to your repertoire. I first heard it in third or fourth grade from a fellow classmate. He said: Don’t you know that god spelled backwards is dog? Then he laughed like he had told me a great joke. Anyway, that’s a freebie for you and the other idol labelers. 6:55 thanks for your misconception, it’s very funny.
No one I knew, or know today, bows down to pray saying “O great almighty Bible, please hear my prayer and provide our daily bread. Thank you oh merciful book.
Nor, burns incense to it. Nor bow every time the Bible is passed. Etc.
Maybe they have lives, careers ect.....
The "turning the Bible into an idol" thingie was a clever play on some of the rhetoric from the HWAcaca. In his attempt to trash mainstream Christians, HWA and his lackeys used to describe them as making an idol out of the Christmas tree. And, of course, an ingenious turnaround such of that is legitimate and effective satire.
BTW, you can't "make some people appear stupid." They do a damned good job of doing that to themselves!
This blog and its participants simply report and expose in an effort to trouble-shoot and promote accountability!
Quote from Peter Enns in his book “The Bible Tells Me So. . . Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It”, p. 237, 2014.
“The Bible is not, never has been, and never will be the center of the Christian faith. Even though the Bible (at least in some form) has been ever present since the beginning of Christianity, it’s not the central focus of the Christian faith. That position belongs to God, specifically, what God has done in and through Jesus. The Bible is the church’s nonnegotiable partner, but it is not God’s final word: Jesus is.
"Of course, the Bible is what tells us about Jesus, but that doesn't put the Bible in the center. As theologians tell us, the Bible, in various and complex ways, "bears witness" to Christ. That is the Bible's role, to encourage the faithful to live in its pages in order to look up from the pages and by the power and love of the Spirit of God, see Jesus
The Bible doesn’t say, “Look at me!” It says, “Look through me.” The Bible, if we are paying attention, decenters itself.”
Litmus Test for the Idolatry of the Bible:
When someone says "the Word of God" do you think of your marked up book or of Jesus?
Ranger
Retraction of Retraction
I recall a minister in the WCG congregation I attended years ago saying that God did not know what choices we would make, hence, God does not know the future. I always then believed this in my years as an Armstrongist. This is the source of my assertion in point 4 of my 3:35 comment. I retracted this statement because it occurred to me that a dimly recalled memory may not be the best foundation for making evaluative statements now about Armstrongism.
Further, in the 1995 timeframe, I recall having an intense discussion with some people who stood against the changes being made in the theology of WCG. I believe they are now in a splinter group. The debate had to do with whether God knew the future. Their view was that if God knew the future then there is no free will.
An allied question is whether God actually created time. Or does time operate independently from God, as if it were a deity in its own right, and so he cannot possibly have control of it or know the future. I found an article in which HWA wrote the words “God created time” but without any detail. The context makes me believe that he is actually saying that God organizes time – for instance creating the Holy Days by designation. I do not believe that HWA was actually asserting that God created time ex nihilo as Christians believe. Physics recognizes time as a part of the physical universe understood by Christians to have been created ex nihilo.
I found another article by Lester Grabbe in which he states in spite of Acts 15:18:
“Consistent with the choice which each Christian has is the fact that God does not know what each of us will eventually choose . . . They had free choice, and free choice rules out specific foreknowledge.” (Good News Magazine, July 1976, p. 9)
So, I would like to retract my retraction. This appears to be the case:
1. Armstrongism holds that God does not know the future.
2. Armstrongism has no unequivocal statement that God created time.
3. This is in contravention of the often-held Christian view that the future exists, God in his omniscience knows the future and this is yet compatible with free will.
If anyone can find Armstrongist documentation that rebuts this, I would appreciate having the citation.
Ranger
Well, it appears the "Bible as idol" comment struck a few nerves - I think that may be the prick of conscience some folks are experiencing? Also, the comments about bowing down before the book or praying to it are absurd. We should all be able to acknowledge that ANYTHING can become something that we put before God (e.g., a house, car, relationship, or a bank account can become an idol to us).
To be clear, I believe that the Bible is a wonderful, complex, and extremely relevant book. I believe that the Bible is inspired by Almighty God. I believe that it is useful for teaching, evidence, correction, and instructing us in the ways of righteousness. Unfortunately, some of us have made the book into THE final authority - ignoring what God's creation and our own experiences of it have to teach us about God and his plans (which Scripture itself instructs us NOT to ignore). Unfortunately, some of have tried to force Scripture into a literalist straitjacket and misunderstand/misinterpret its intent by doing so. Unfortunately, some Christians fail to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures through the Christ event. In short, the Bible is a dangerous book in the wrong hands.
Finally, I'm not interested in soothing ruffled feathers. My objective is to prompt people to think about why they believe what they believe and do what they do. I want folks to start thinking for themselves again and start exploring Scripture and the world around them with the intellectual curiosity and independent thinking that made them notice Herbert Armstrong and his teachings in the first place. It is NOT my intention to personally offend anyone, but I don't appear here to make people comfortable in the cocoon they've woven for themselves either.
2:50 wrote: “ This blog and its participants simply report and expose in an effort to trouble-shoot and promote accountability!”
Exactly, that is, the critics simply report their own bias, misconceptions, rumors, distortions, complaints, etc much more than they realize, as if these things are facts. And, they don’t seem to know all are easily seen through, and seen for what the writers themselves are, basically rumor mongers.
Plan B - The Armstrongist God Does Not Know The Future
While HWA in the MOA does not make a direct statement that God does not know the future, he makes an implicit statement about this. God intended for the angels to finish the universe. But they fell away. When they fell (p. 94), he realized he would have to reproduce himself so he made humans.
The story arc indicates that God did not know the angels were going to fall. So he had to devise a Plan B. Humans were created as a part of Plan B. We are not what God originally intended but a "fall back and regroup" strategy. God had to fall back and regroup because he did not know the future according to HWA.
Sorry, I did not think of this before my retraction. Was not thinking clearly.
Ranger
7:48 said “ Exactly, that is, the critics simply report their own bias, misconceptions, rumors, distortions, complaints, etc much more than they realize, as if these things are facts. ”
You just described how Armstrongite preachers preach. Instead of preach Christ they preach their own bias, misconceptions, distortions learned from HWA and others, much more than they realize.
If you don’t like what people post here why do you read it and make yourself miserable? Armstrongites love to pretend to be martyrs for the truth they think Herbert restored.
Allow me to digest and understand what you have just written, 7:48.
Are you actually implying that whatever comes from Armstrongite sources is correct and accurate, while what is contributed by the bloggers here at Banned is biased, misinformed, and inherently suspect and wrong???
That would be a sweeping generalization on your part. We have witnessed this type of attitude exhibited by our former captors, the ministry and leaders of Armstrongism..
I've been on these so-called dissident sites for many years now, and have seen much deep research which counters and disproves Armstrongism presented. There have occasionally been easily dismissed and very amateur attempts, but much of what I've seen is the sort of university quality material for which I would normally search in my own studies.
My own thoughts are that it is all a matter of simple math for God to know in advance exactly what humans and angelic beings will do. He knows what is in their dna, thoughts, and motivations. It is as if all of humanity is on computer, CCTV, Polygraph, CAT scan, MRI simultaneously! This makes it literally impossible for God to be shocked and need to go to Plan B!
in WCG I fully recall the stuffed shirts often quipping their favorite cookie-cutter sound-byte..."can God build a rock too heavy for His own self to lift?" it would garner as much banter as which came 1st chicken or the egg
"You just described how Armstrongite preachers preach. Instead of preach Christ they preach their own bias, misconceptions, distortions learned from HWA, and others much more than they realize."
The mind set of this new gadfly does seem to be that of an Armstrongite preacher, or wannabee who is able to imitate the binary thinking patterns of an Armstrongite preacher, doesn't he, 9:21? I think you may be on to something. Perhaps someone here has struck an especially raw nerve in one of the little ACOG groups.
Anyway, he, she, or it is very amusing and somewhat fun to play with for now.
After decades of being conned that everything in the Bible actually happened is thanks to the literalism that the church tried to employ.
The fact that allegory, myths, metaphor, analogy, and symbolism make up the Bible shortcircuits those steeped in literalism. All of these contain truths, but do not necessarily mean if happened.
"God is absolute" is a slogan. Nothing but a sound bite.
Ranger: are you dumb, or just pretending? Sidestepping the point maybe? In any case, you seem to be as hopeless as Miller. And don't call me an Armstrongite (again).
Is it just God the Father and the Word, who became Jesus, currently in the family of God? Who is to say if there are not other beings that are not mentioned specifically in the Bible?
This was a definite thought in church publications of the 1950s and 60s, such as this quote:-
"We know of at least two spirit beings now in the God Family."
The problem with this reasoning, that it's not about the Bible but about Jesus, is that you wouldn't even know about Jesus were it not for the Bible. None of us would. Would we? Would you? How would you know? So you say, thanks Mr. Bible, for telling me about Jesus, now I'll form my own opinions about Jesus, I don't need you anymore, I can take it from here, thanks. But thanks Mr. Bible, for at least getting me started.
HWA taught, in effect, that God has a spirit body composed of spirit flesh and spirit bone, but without blood. God does not "breathe" or need to breathe to live because He has inherent immortality. The angels, also known as the sons of God, also have spirit bodies of spirit flesh and spirit bone. This is simply the reality of life for spirit beings; they are not shapeless, formless blobs so to speak. So yes, in your words, God has a functional body, it's the only body He has had for all eternity, and yes, it is His very essence, it's who He literally is. Before his incarnation, Jesus also had a spirit body of spirit flesh and spirit bone. He was made (not born) of a woman and took on a human body of human flesh, human blood and human bone. He was resurrected back into his original spirit body of spirit flesh and spirit bone, only now more exalted than before. He is not a "glorified human being" or "glorified man" living forever in heaven. There is no such thing as that. There are spirit beings, with spirit bodies of spirit flesh and spirit bone, and ordinary human beings, with human bodies of human flesh, blood and bone. This is what the Bible means when it says man was made in the image of God. We look like God looks in general form and shape, except that God is composed of spirit while we are composed of human, physical flesh. You'll never get it any plainer than that.
I agree. "God is absolute" is nothing more that a philosophical comment about God. It's the same as saying "God is God", or "God is in everything" or "God is in everyone". It sounds meaningful on the surface, but it's meaningless because you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. It's a form of meaningless worship, worshipping God in vain as the Bible says. It's human philosophy, as opposed to divine revelation.
So if God does not have a body, what does He have instead? Or, is that a stupid question? Clue me in.
So, you dumped Armstrongism, the baby as well as the bathwater, and embraced the Trinity? How did you ever get duped into Armstrongism in the first place? Did you start off with the Trinity, get duped by HWA into dumping the Trinity, and now you're back in Trinityville? Now that is truly a tortuous, circuitous journey to have made. I can see why you've got a lot of baggage to unload.
No, the word "absolute" cannot be found in any of those verses. I just checked; it's not there. If those are starters, then I'll need to see the main course. "Absolute" is a philosophical term from human philosophy, it's essentially meaningless because it can mean whatever you want it to mean. If God had intended for us to understand Him as "absolute", don't you think He would have inspired that term to appear in the Bible? But He obviously did not, for good reason. God does not need or require us to rely on human philosophy to understand Him. Quite the opposite, He condemns human philosophy as idolatry. We all need to dump the philosophy and get back to God's word as a child would understand it. Is that a problem?
Hey, Armstrongite, since you post as "Anonymous", how are we to know who is saying what? We differentiate amongst the Anonymi by the ideologies they project!
Also, proper blogging etiquette dictates that less intelligent people don't get to call people who are more intelligent than themselves "dumb". Violating that precept is just plain unbecoming!
God didn't know for sure if Abraham would bundle up young Isaac & then get ready for a fire there
9:49 wrote, "God is absolute" is a slogan. Nothing but a sound bite.
My guess is that you read only the first sentence of my essay. That first sentence is followed by a well reasoned argument that you seem to have skipped over. The Armstrongists who comment here usually write in the sound bites that they hear from their pulpit - stuff that plays well in sales and at Spokesman Club. Seldom do Armstrongists back up what sound bites with any kind of logical argument or exegesis. It's all Ambassador College theatrics.
Ranger
Anonymous 9:55
You make an ad hominem attack with no argument, exegesis or content of merit. If you are not an Armstrongist in fact, you are certainly one in spirit. You are an honorary Armstrongists.
Ranger
I would say Jesus is not a clone of His Father. But some would say it.
Cory Haffly wrote, "The problem with this reasoning, that it's not about the Bible but about Jesus, is that you wouldn't even know about Jesus were it not for the Bible."
The Bible informs you of Jesus without drawing all the attention to itself. It points to Jesus and it points to Christ living in your. It points to the work of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not a prescription that is the total picture. Walking in the Way is a dynamic process.
Ranger
Cory Haffly:
Some short responses to your statements in quotes.
“HWA taught, in effect, that God has a spirit body composed of spirit flesh and spirit bone, but without blood.”
Jesus said God is spirit and compared him to wind, a phenomenon that is bodyless, powerful and invisible. I would rather believe Jesus than a bunch of concoctions imagined by HWA based on his belief that the anthropomorphic language of the Old Testament describes God in his essence.
“God is absolute" is nothing more than a philosophical comment about God.”
No, it isn’t. It has real meaning. Please read my essay. It clearly separates the real God from HWA’s imaginary god.
“So, if God does not have a body, what does He have instead? Or, is that a stupid question? Clue me in.”
Jesus said that God is spirit (pneuma). He does not say he is “composed” of a spirit substance. I do not think we can understand what a spirit is. We have pneuma that is inherent in our bodies that grants us mind, personality and intelligence. We consist of pneuma, psuche and sarx. Only psuche and sarx account for our bodily existence and are mortal. Pneuma is spirit and is as Jesus described it as stated earlier.
“How did you ever get duped into Armstrongism in the first place?”
I was seventeen, impressionable and had no background with Christianity. GTA was a good salesman. I think you are trying to deride me for this but I don’t know why. My guess is that you are not a very pleasant person and your affair with Armstrongism hasn’t done much to help you.
“"Absolute" is a philosophical term from human philosophy, it's essentially meaningless because it can mean whatever you want it to mean.”
Absolute is not essentially meaningless. That is just a dodge. You may have declined to understand it but that is your business. Don’t you think it is odd that you are the only one among those who have read my essay who asserts that? I make an argument and you come back with a bald assertion that is devoid of any supporting logic. Debate just does not work that way.
Ranger
Cory Haffly:
Before you respond to my recent comments, read this:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/06/quantum-physics-and-incorporeality-of.html
Ranger
Post a Comment