Ineffable Goodness I've been thinking about a few things since my last post. If I can accept God as an ineffable being whom I cannot fully understand, why should I worry that placing a label on God such as Omnibenevolent be a bad thing. I think it's true, and the idea that as a definition of God it will eventually fail is not complete. Basically, if I (as a human being) cannot fully understand God, why should I claim that I can fully understand Goodness, Truth, Beauty, or any other absolute abstraction? I can get a glimpse of God, Goodness, Truth, Beauty, Evil, etc., but can I fully understand any of them? Probably not.

I used to say that human beings were imperfect, broken creatures who could not fully understand God. I've always been troubled by those words because they point to the idea that life itself is a horrible thing that we need to be rescued from. I don't believe that humanity fell from paradise. I don't believe Eden existed. We don't need to be salvaged from our broken and worthless humanity. We are images of God, and as such we are incomplete, not broken. We need to reunite with God. We do that by following the examples and teaching of those people who we beleive have found their completeness in God. As Christians we look to Jesus of Nazareth.

The other part of the Campbell interview was the idea that the Hero always seemed to have an inner peace. We see it in our best athletes. Their bodies might be working in overdrive but their spirits are reportedly calm. Psychologists talk about 'flow,' that state of mind where you are so involved in a task that the world can't interfere, and even time doesn't intrude. Doesn't the Bible teach us that God speaks to us in a still, small voice, that we can only hear when we are inside ourselves, and not focusing on the outside material world?

It gives me hope that I can become completed by God, as my wife makes me more complete than I was before we met, as children will hopefully one day bring me closer to completeness. One day I will be comfortable with the ineffability of God and all the other philosophical abstractions. One day I'll figure it out. Perhaps I'm too young. Some of the important teachers in my life, namely my Mother and Caroline Litzenberger, have both said that as they grow older they are more comfortable with the mystery of God. The questions now becomes 'what do I do with the Mystery now?'  ¶ 10:50 AM 0 comments

  Notes from the Catechism I was sitting in Church last Sunday and picked up the catechism. I was looking for guidance on the Eucharist, but I came across an earlier entry and this was the result:

To be created in the image of God means that we are free to make choices. We understand that without our free will, our love for God would be meaningless. We also tend to believe that God does not have free will. God has no choice but to act in certain ways. We see God as omnibenevolent, which limits the choices we believe God will take. We try to take away God's will.

It would seem that defining God limits him. This isn't a new idea. Almost every good theologian has recognized this flaw. However, God is limitless and ineffable. We can never fully understand God and therefore our definitions fail.

Does this mean that our definition of God as omnibenevolent fails? It has to. It can, at best, point to one theological belief about God, but it cannot define God, not even in the smallest amount.

When we attach broad labels to God we miss the importance of ineffibility. We make the mistake of treating God like a human being. This seems reasonable, since we are an image of God. Perhaps our sense of importance and racial ego has led us to believe that we are THE image of God, not merely AN image of God. This is theism, which is slowly dying in some quarters and being fiercely defended in others.

Our growth out of theism is a sign not of our understanding God, but our acceptance of God, leading to love.  ¶ 8:22 AM 0 comments