3 ms·

> There's no "correct theological interpretation". Theology is more correct the closer it gets to God. God is the greatest thing imaginable. Theology is an ima

> There's no "correct theological interpretation". Theology is more correct the closer it gets to God. God is the greatest thing imaginable. Theology is an imagination of God. If God is real then there must exist more correct theologies. So more correct theology will more descriptive of God's greatness. And a God that can be rational is greater than a God that strictly stays outside of rationality.

coldtea 7y ago
>Theology is more correct the closer it gets to God. Only if God wants it so. The "thelema" (will) of God is more important in this regard to what aspirations self-professed thelogicians have. God for one haven't even said that he likes or approves of theologicians! In fact in several religions attempting to get "closer to god" or "learn God's secrets" is a blaspheme. >And a God that can be rational is greater than a God that strictly stays outside of rationality. That's just an arbitrary axiom. One could just as easily posit the opposite: "A god that isn't bounded by rationality is greater than a God that strictly stays inside of rationality" (in fact, e.g. the Eastern Orthodox church posits exactly that, and other non-Christian religions as well).
- vinceguidry 7y ago
  > That's just an arbitrary axiom. No it's not. It's saying that a God that can do two things, i.e. be rational and be irrational, is greater than a God that can just do one thing, be irrational. Your opposite isn't an actual opposite, it's just a comparison between a God that can do a thing and a God that can do some things but not others.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >No it's not. It's saying that a God that can do two things, i.e. be rational and be irrational, is greater than a God that can just do one thing, be irrational. Actually, the God that "can do two things, i.e. be rational and be irrational" is my description -- I was supporting that (e.g. see above: "unbounded by logical or physical constraints", "God that can be illogical or beyond logic (such us that logical and illogical make no sense as restrictions to him)", "God created logic and can break it at will" -- which means can also follow it at will, etc.). You were going by a more restricted God that can only be rational. Not to mention your own comparison is based on rationality. Even ignoring what I wrote above, from the standpoint of God "a God that can do two things" might not be greater than a "God that can only do one". God himself defines not just physical laws and logic, but also the very meaning of notions like "greater" (that is, works on a meta level). "More if greater" is our undestanding of what's greater, not necessarily God's (like a child thinks more sugar in food is greater, but a parent knows better). It would be constraining to assume of God the constrains of greatness than we are bound to.

coldtea 7y ago

>Theology is more correct the closer it gets to God. Only if God wants it so. The "thelema" (will) of God is more important in this regard to what aspirations self-professed thelogicians have. God for one haven't even said that he likes or approves of theologicians! In fact in several religions attempting to get "closer to god" or "learn God's secrets" is a blaspheme. >And a God that can be rational is greater than a God that strictly stays outside of rationality. That's just an arbitrary axiom. One could just as easily posit the opposite: "A god that isn't bounded by rationality is greater than a God that strictly stays inside of rationality" (in fact, e.g. the Eastern Orthodox church posits exactly that, and other non-Christian religions as well).

vinceguidry 7y ago
> That's just an arbitrary axiom. No it's not. It's saying that a God that can do two things, i.e. be rational and be irrational, is greater than a God that can just do one thing, be irrational. Your opposite isn't an actual opposite, it's just a comparison between a God that can do a thing and a God that can do some things but not others.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >No it's not. It's saying that a God that can do two things, i.e. be rational and be irrational, is greater than a God that can just do one thing, be irrational. Actually, the God that "can do two things, i.e. be rational and be irrational" is my description -- I was supporting that (e.g. see above: "unbounded by logical or physical constraints", "God that can be illogical or beyond logic (such us that logical and illogical make no sense as restrictions to him)", "God created logic and can break it at will" -- which means can also follow it at will, etc.). You were going by a more restricted God that can only be rational. Not to mention your own comparison is based on rationality. Even ignoring what I wrote above, from the standpoint of God "a God that can do two things" might not be greater than a "God that can only do one". God himself defines not just physical laws and logic, but also the very meaning of notions like "greater" (that is, works on a meta level). "More if greater" is our undestanding of what's greater, not necessarily God's (like a child thinks more sugar in food is greater, but a parent knows better). It would be constraining to assume of God the constrains of greatness than we are bound to.