angry sinners in the hands of a loving God
I can't help myself sometimes. I just have to ask questions that always - always - go unanswered and even unacknowledged. Stan, at his blog, was pontificating about how we know morality (in Stan's opinion, which he claims is God's opinion):
So "good" is not determined by your standard versus my standard. It is determined by God.
Another way of asking the reasonable questions that won't get an answer is this:
Rational failure 1:
YOU, mortal and fallible human that you are, have a THEORY... a guess, that "morality is determined by God."
You haven't proven that theory, you and folks like you just promote it as if it's a given and as if you don't have to even TRY to support it.
AND given that you are a mortal, fallible human, why is your collective theory impervious to being mistaken?
Rational failure 2. Let's ASSUME that your human theory/guess is factually correct (again, something you absolutely haven't proven... it's literally a human theory you and other humans like you promote from your own reasoning...):
How do fallible humans rightly determine what God has determined about morality?
Presumably, he would answer (with no support), The Bible! as if that were some sort of infallible proof (that is, his human theory that the Bible has God's answers to moral questions, objectively proven). But okay, IF the Bible is the "source" for understanding God's perfect rulings system (the one that humans like Stan theorize about), how do we fallible humans understand the "moral rulings" given by God as found in the pages of the Bible (as you theorize)?
By reading it? But I read it and you read it and we come to differing, sometimes totally opposite conclusions.
At that point, how do we determine who is understanding it correctly?
The human people who agree with you?
That's hardly objective proof, right?
Don't you see the huge hole in your human theory that you're just openly ignoring?
More questions that will remain entirely unaddressed.
2 comments:
God got an underage girl pregnant. Which by Stan’s logic is why they write off the White guys in the GOP who do the same.
Using the Bible for White Supremacy. Great track record.
Dan, if a book is the only sacrament one has to be the medium on which the supernatural answers the natural desire for communion, then one’s concepts of faith are contained by the book, one’s relationship to the divine is contained by the book, and one’s life in the universal Truth - which should be a timelessness and infinite in space AND represented in one’s particularity (otherwise we are Buddhists and not Christians) - is inescapably a reduction to a particularity not of current life, not of the living God, but necessarily reduced to a patch of ground 2,000 years in the past.
The Thugs sole sacramental practice - the sole sacramental practice of radical protestantism (a memorial snack is not a sacrament) - is obeying the presence of God… in black and red ink on pages of a book.
They cannot answer you.
They are devoid of the Divine One in all infinite mystery, the mystery made present to us in our faith by the power of the Holy Spirit teaching our innate desire to be holy (our first grace) and by our cooperating and ever nourishing practice of the sacraments, as the Lord and we believers are bound communally in the Will to love all of God’s creation.
They, like Kant and the rationalist Enlightenment, only have a replacement law. Held dear in dead hearts.
Post a Comment