That quote is in the OT three times. Probably did a cut and paste to Westminster.
I don’t recall it being part of Catholic dogma.
What’s a “begriffener”??
So on the exact point of issue, can I invite you to agree with me that the “Christian Orthodox” version of god is actually quite a slippery fish to nail down?
But I also doubt that a text written is 1646 is till particularly mainstream right now.
For me such a slippery concept, and one that is so self contradictory and variable across time and culture, does not encourage me to see the thing in itself as either a viable nor a truthful hypothesis, as you can imagine.
As for “paradox”
Only truth can engender a paradox. Incoherences, or contradictions can be just that. The “tensions” in logic, as you might call them, are only paradoxical if you accept the contradictions to stand, and they are a factual representation of what god is.
It seems to me that whatever the rabid Protestants wrote in their “Confession” is 1642 (or whenever it was) are not to be taken as factual.
It was conceived at a politically difficult time around the time of the Civil War, when catholics and protestants were burning each other.
That is not at issue.
dup
It is derived from “begreifen” - as the verb in the infinitive form -, and “begreifen” means “understand”, “comprehend”, "conceive ", “recognise”. “Ein begriffener Gott ist kein Gott” means “an understood God is no God”.
Ahhh… thanks, in return. 
Yes, that is what I have been saying for so long too.
So we have the priests, the scientists, and with them we have the increase of illusions and insanity, and at last the products of that all: a high “human civilisation” with its technologie / technique, amongst other things more and more machines and the high probability that they will replace all human beings (cp. my thread: “Will machines completely replace all human beings?”).
If one had said when human history started that all humans will be replaced by machines one day, no one would and could have understand or even believed that. But the most human beings have been knowing that since the first well-functioning steam-engine was built and the so called “indsutrial revolution” began. And what happened, happens, and will happen? The increasing replacement of human beings by machines.
Yes. That’s why I usually refer to God as a symbol rather than a concept. Perhaps you have relieved me of the need to explain.
When I read orthodox Christian theology of say Richard Swinburne, an Eastern Orthodox or Alvin Plantinga, a Roman Catholic, I don’t see significant differences. Where there are significant differences, it is reasonable to question whether the doctrines are orthodox. Of course, “significance” is always a judgment call.
I appreciate the purity of your position. But my experience with the hypothesis is complex, and I continue find it fascinating and paradoxical as I said.
Truth can itself be “a slippery concept” as you said of God. I think what engenders paradoxes are the great perennial philosophical questions. Intelligent persons marshal reasonable arguments on both sides of these questions. “Antomonies” Kant called them. He didn’t list God as one of them, but he came down on both sides of the God debate in different books, so he seemed to be caught by the paradox himself.
But it wasn’t conceived at that time. They were the carriers of a long tradition of theistic thought that went back at least to the ancient Jews and Greeks. They may have added their own twist to to it. But their continuity with the theistic orthodoxy is unmistakable.
Thanks. I found the verses which support my proposition of doctrinal continuity: Exodus 34:7
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Numbers 14:18
The Lord is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Nahum 1:1-3
The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord is avenging and wrathful; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies. The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty… Who can stand before his indignation? Who can endure the heat of his anger? His wrath is poured out like fire, and the rocks are broken into pieces by him.
Thus, the need for the sacrificial lamb of God.
I always found it interesting that Protestants like to describe God as wrathful, angry, etc. In comparison, the God described by Catholics is much more loving and cuddly.
Protestantism was created by Judaism.
The paradox comes from trying to use God as the explanation for observations which are contradictory.
We are talking about the God hypothesis in three phases : past, present and future.
Past:
You can start by looking at the physical world and conclude that an intelligent agent is a reasonable explanation for the complexity and organization of the world.
Present :
You then look at what happens to people… ‘good’ people suffer, ‘evil’ people prosper. On the other hand, ‘good’ people prosper and ‘evil’ people suffer as well.
Fundamentally, it is unclear how God is an explanation for what is happening. None the less, people try to fit a concept of God to some of the observations. So for example, they propose that a just God is punishing the sins of a previous generation.
However, it seems impossible to reach a reasonable conclusion about the nature of God based on the evidence. That’s why a lot of scientists are deists instead of theists. The evidence suggests that God is not actively involved with humans on a daily basis. Or the nature of the involvement can’t be ascertained.
Future:
This last aspect is the afterlife. No evidence, nothing to observe. Nobody has ever witnessed God punishing or forgiving the dead individual. So everything said about it is wishful thinking and bound to be contradictory.
What does that mean? All Christianity comes from Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, as were all those who initially spread the word.
You can’t expect it to mean anything, It’s James SS.
Ironic as Martin Luther, the man attributed with the first successful challenge to the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church, was thoroughly anti-semitic.
largely it is because Protestants take their authority from the Bible which is used as evidence, whilst the Catholics take their authority from the Pope.
One of the key reasons for the Reformation was the fact that the RCC was taking liberties by selling indulgences. God would be wrathful enough and burn you in Hell for all eternity, unless you paid the cash up front to the Church. It which case the priests would has a little word with god to make sure you got forgiven.
Can you spell, “s-u-c-k-e-r”?
Every post you make is straight out of the propaganda book, almost verbatim.
Which book would that be? I’m surprised to learn that you know what a book is?
Is there some part of my post you fail to understand, or is there a part you would like to challenged factually?
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso … _Jews.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Lut … tisemitism
Set fire to their synagogues or schools,” Martin Luther recommended in On the Jews and Their Lies. Jewish houses should “be razed and destroyed,” and Jewish “prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them.” In addition, “their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb.” Still, this wasn’t enough.
Luther also urged that “safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews,” and that “all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them.” What Jews could do was to have “a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade” put into their hands so “young, strong Jews and Jewesses” could “earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.”
Or perhaps the assertion that ML, was the first to being about a successful challenge to the authority of the RCC, that you do not like?
Something understood (German)…
ML was a badass … theres no getting around that …