Why a god would make Limits.

C

CheskiChips

Banned
Banned
This is a frequently asked question on this subforum. Of which is really in a poor state due to its non-Religious invaders...in any case here's a presented theology for the question.

============

Historically constituted freedom is a transitive, undetermined power shared by God and humanity, although the freedom of the Creator is not constrained like that of creatures. Our observances of the commandments is almost always bounded within natural limits, unlike God's performance of miracles. So divine and human freedom interact in the covenantal relationship, but not symmetrically. God always retains his limitlessness. Man is always limited. Without some structure, however, divine freedom would be mere caprice; all the more so, human freedom. Caprice is freedom that intends no relationship.*1

The alternatives to that terrifying possibility are to constitute a realm of covenantal history between God and man*2, or to constitute a nature within God, into which humans can be embedded. The latter of the two was chosen by many deists who strayed from monotheism. The former was obviously the intent, and is one of the fundamental principals of monotheism.


*1 - A total lack of restraint is not to be confused with the hedonistic Greek culture for an era. Rather the total caprice as the set standard is the total lack of awareness. Internal desires come to manipulate external events, a land with no laws cannot exist. However; of course, it was a possibility.

*2 - This was the intended meaning of the bris, and it is also the intended meaning of the "Covenant of Jacob/Israel".
 
CheskiChips said:
This is a frequently asked question on this subforum. Of which is really in a poor state due to its non-Religious invaders...in any case here's a presented theology for the question.

============

Historically constituted freedom is a transitive, undetermined power shared by God and humanity, although the freedom of the Creator is not constrained like that of creatures. Our observances of the commandments is almost always bounded within natural limits, unlike God's performance of miracles. So divine and human freedom interact in the covenantal relationship, but not symmetrically. God always retains his limitlessness. Man is always limited. Without some structure, however, divine freedom would be mere caprice; all the more so, human freedom. Caprice is freedom that intends no relationship.*1

The alternatives to that terrifying possibility are to constitute a realm of covenantal history between God and man*2, or to constitute a nature within God, into which humans can be embedded. The latter of the two was chosen by many deists who strayed from monotheism. The former was obviously the intent, and is one of the fundamental principals of monotheism.


*1 - A total lack of restraint is not to be confused with the hedonistic Greek culture for an era. Rather the total caprice as the set standard is the total lack of awareness. Internal desires come to manipulate external events, a land with no laws cannot exist. However; of course, it was a possibility.

*2 - This was the intended meaning of the bris, and it is also the intended meaning of the "Covenant of Jacob/Israel".
Click to expand...

The more power 1 has, the more freedom 1 can exercise. The more power some other has over 1, the less power 1 can practice. But ... ...

CheskiChips said:
Way to make another retarded no content thread. We need more of those in religion forum!
Click to expand...

Sometimes it seems there are no limits.

I don't know if this section of SciForums was once dominated by theists. It is the Religion discussion section of the PHILOSOPHY section of SCIforums. No 1 is an invader if they're on topic.
 
Theology is a philosophy.

I was answering the philosophical question as why limits are needed.

Your responses lack depth here, and your either unwillingness to read what I wrote or your hatred blinded you from reading a valid statement.

I hope the world you live in is not nearly as small as you make it out to be; that would be tragically sad.
 
CheskiChips said:
This is a frequently asked question on this subforum. Of which is really in a poor state due to its non-Religious invaders...in any case here's a presented theology for the question.
Caprice is freedom that intends no relationship.*1
*1 - A total lack of restraint is not to be confused with the hedonistic Greek culture for an era. Rather the total caprice as the set standard is the total lack of awareness. Internal desires come to manipulate external events, a land with no laws cannot exist. However; of course, it was a possibility.
Click to expand...
I had trouble understanding you notion of caprice - which I am assuming is a kind of negative (as in bad) freedom in your usage.

It seems like you are saying that when you talk about caprice you are talking about unconscious flailing around. But I am not sure. I would also assume that the hedonist greek lack of restraint would also not be OK even through this is contrasted - possibly - with caprice.

Anyway, I hope that was enough to show you where I got lost. If you could rephrase it for me I can respond.
 
CheskiChips said:
This is a frequently asked question on this subforum. Of which is really in a poor state due to its non-Religious invaders...in any case here's a presented theology for the question.
Click to expand...

Umm, how can some one who has only been a member for a month and a half know whom the invaders are?
 
Simon Anders said:
I had trouble understanding you notion of caprice - which I am assuming is a kind of negative (as in bad) freedom in your usage.

It seems like you are saying that when you talk about caprice you are talking about unconscious flailing around. But I am not sure. I would also assume that the hedonist greek lack of restraint would also not be OK even through this is contrasted - possibly - with caprice.

Anyway, I hope that was enough to show you where I got lost. If you could rephrase it for me I can respond.
Click to expand...

Simon Anders; I recently checked on the status of this thread. It's been a busy holiday season, I will respond now.

I mean to define 'caprice' as an unmotivated action with no need for cogniscience of either past or present. Without recognition of potential; without defined limit and constraint...then there are no repercussions that cannot be remedied instantaneously. It's this exchange between correct and incorrect that allows a relationship to exist.

A hedonist still existed in the world we do, it was his philosophy that believed life was (as I defined) caprice. It wasn't, he was still held accountable for his actions by even his peers. His interactions with the natural world still existed, and he could not manipulate them fully...rather choose the small world to live in that he could manipulate.

In utter and complete caprice, the entire world would lack form. Without form and guidance there would be no law. With no law, there would be no thought. We'd be simply specks with full control of our surroundings living in some arbitrary neutral existence. Thus to create a relationship law must be formed, law inherently has limits.
 
CheskiChips Thus to create a relationship law must be formed, law inherently has limits.

Except laws are just descriptions of the regularities people observe in reality.
 
People are forgetting that God is Eternal. Man, as a Collective, including whatever Posterity might follow on to Mankind, may also approack Eternal Existence.

One cannot really measure the Quality and Accomplishments of God, or Man, until AFTER Eternity. If God is Eternal, then He needs his Time, doesn't He.

Measuring God, or Man, in Mid-Process, well, simply isn't Cricket... its to ignore the Rules that we seem to have accepted going into the discussion on Absolutes. Is God Eternal or Not... and if He is... we need to respect that. God is Perfect, yes, given an Eternity. Before an Eternity has transpired, we are all rather jumping the gun coming to early Judgments. No?

In this sense, one should hardly make arguments for eithe the Limitation of God or the Limitation of Man. Both are using Eternity as best they can to Evolve into the Best they can be.
 
Leo Volont People are forgetting that God is Eternal

You don't know that. How many eternities do you have experience with? How many gods have you tested? You are just making shit up because it pleases you to say it.
 
swarm said:
CheskiChips Thus to create a relationship law must be formed, law inherently has limits.

Except laws are just descriptions of the regularities people observe in reality.
Click to expand...

Ideal interrelations are not simply regularities, they are ideal regardless of the state of macro-relations. The beneficial outcome is only magnified in a better state, however the beneficial outcome always exists. Thus is one of the founding principals of monotheism. Thus it would seem that interrelations have laws no different than physical entities have laws; in the case of physics...we see the laws have been ever-present. No one seems to support the evolution of fundamental constants and laws outside of the moment (which was caprice) in the very beginning.

Thus what is the foundation of these interrelation laws? They don't seem to be evolved, or the benefit of them would be ever changing...this isn't the case. The morals have not evolved, not even atheists disagree with the foundational morals.

Leaving the questioning of why these seemingly ONLY human relational laws and constants exist...which is a greater question than why do the physical laws and constants exist. The monotheistic answer is; the covenant of relationship is what removed human caprice. The covenant with the physical world, is what removed physical caprice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top