An Implied Presumption of Theology

David S. Martin: An Implied Presumption of Theology

“Theology becomes relevant when one assumes that he is capable of knowing what God expects from his creation.

Humanity is arrogant enough to believe that this knowledge is within our grasp, and so, we cipher with our finite minds; presuming that the infinite mind of God may be captured by us and placed under glass or on a pin, in our collection of empirical facts.”

Scott: The thought is intriguing and does have some appeal. I wonder though where this leaves resources like the Bible and our “God given inner compass, the conscience”, which helps with discernment and being “Spirit led”.

I think I believe that it is possible to know God’s will with certain and assured limitations, but his is a question I have not really analyzed in depth. I believe that we have touched upon this topic before in discussions of ethics and morality…
Any other thoughts?

David S Martin: This philosophical observation has evolved since its first incarnation.
Something about it seems too simple to be an error.

But, the things, of which you make note, are abrasive to a reasonable mind. So, we are compelled to harmonize a paradox that is inexplicable.
The paradox….

• God is mystery. God is Spirit. God exists in the cosmos, but cannot be contained by the cosmos.
• Man is a tiny speck within the cosmos. Man must understand the will of God. Man must obtain the knowledge of God.

The implied presumption of theology utterly defies the being of God.

It would be the greatest tragedy in human history.
The day when man succeeded in his quest to grasp God’s will for creation.

This would be the greatest tragedy…, because, on that day, man will have wrestled God from heaven and equaled Him on the field of intellectual battle.

Scott: I am generally very wary, to say the least, of people that make statements like “God wants___________ (fill in the blank)… Like I mentioned before upon hearing James Dobson say, “God wants to use the US to help destroy Islam”, which immediately made me ask several very penetrating questions like where he supposedly got that information, why God would need our fighter planes and tanks if he wanted Islam destroyed, who does this guy think he is and what scripture did he get that idea from?”
But, I don’t think I have ever understood theology as necessarily discovering God’s will but rather exploring his nature. As far as will goes, we have discussed whether or not there is a master plan or a script for every person- I don’t believe there is. All this comes out in an exploration of the question of freewill.
I think my studies of Native theology helped free up my mind on these topics. As you mention, sort of, generally speaking Native Americans thought of God as the “Great Mystery”

Scott: “The Great Mystery” being distinct from “The Great Spirit”. They acknowledged that certain aspects of God’s nature were simply beyond the grasp of the human mind. All that they knew was that this Creator God was benevolent, having created life in an ordered, cyclical, nurturing,
symbiotic , morally conscious section of a vast cosmos, most of which they could know nothing about except by expanding the spiritual nature- which they were actually quite good at. This was a lot easier for them than us because of the distractions in the world we have built for ourselves. They never pretended to know what God’s will was- but simply sought to find their own purpose and hopefully fulfillment within creation. I could go on for hours… your turn.

Scott: What I was working up to before cutting myself off was that not ALL, humanity assumes that arrogance of which you speak… the Western mind and the indigenous mind (or some indigenous minds) are actually quite different on that point…. That arrogance and assumption and collection of facts is what we mostly know because that is what this culture that we are living in the middle of has made of itself… but not all humanity and all cultures try to operate that way.

David S Martin: You may be correct about theology.
However, my understanding of theology is as a rational approach to understanding the being & essence of deity.

The terms of exploring God’s “nature”, implies that God has a “natural” or physicality that lends itself to being observed naturally. This to me is paradoxical.
The statement that started our discussion does not point a finger of blame, shame or prideful guilt at one man, e.g. James Dobson. Instead, it says that mankind has a task that defies reason, in attempting to study a non-creature, i.e. study an un-created life.

The statement can’t be seen to single out Dobson, Moses, or Muhammad.

The issue is that man attempts to know God. As any man comes to believe he has knowledge of God, he is compelled to distribute this knowledge to others. Therefore, by so doing arrogance is manifest in the teacher, rabbi, priest, and shaman.

David S Martin: I had been thinking and writing when you posted your comment prior to my last. However, your point about other cultures being less encumbered by western (industrial) thought is not necessarily true. Siddhartha attained enlightenment and then sought to help others follow his path. This implies that he had a deeper grasp of spiritual essence. Lao Tzu recorded the great wisdom of the Tao Te Ching, which implies he had discerned a unique knowledge of the Tao that others did not have.

It may be said that Lao Tzu and Siddhartha were most humble of men, but, the fact that they knew they had achieved such humility that should be recorded for the enlightenment of others, is hubris.

David S Martin: I apologize for my cynicism. The purpose was not to be a “kill joy.”

Scott: by nature I mean essence- I think of that as the same thing… but semantics can always trip one up…

This reminds me of the old saying about how those that speak don’t know and those that don’t speak do know…
but, that statement too is an assertion of knowing and wisdom… and assumption that wise, knowing men hold their tongues and actually know something of the unknowable… lol. In the end, who knows?

About all I profess to know about God himself is that there is one and his Spirit can interface with that of a person in a pretty unmistakable way… and even then, the Mystery is not revealed but only confirmed(?)(not sure what word to use there- language has its limitations)

David S Martin: Yes, I thought that I understood you on that.
Just so you don’t misunderstand my underlying point; the nuance issue comes into play in my understanding.

It should not be understood that I am denying the value of seeking knowledge of God,
neither should it be understood that I am denying the value of sharing knowledge of God.

Rather, what I am saying is that the knowledge men obtain about God, is not so much the result of the men wrestling knowledge from God by great effort and intelligence.

The knowledge, therefore, is obtained by a humble acceptance of the revelation from God. It is a spiritual epiphany within the heart, mind and soul.

Scott:

I had gotten all that- good summation.