29 September 2006

What If God… (Part Two)

Filed under: Ktismata — ktismatics @ 3:34 pm

What if God is the difference between evolving and improving?

What if God is the difference between surviving and living?

What if God is the difference between adapting and creating?

What if God is the difference between fitness and goodness?

What if God is the difference between individualism and individuality?

What if God is the difference between communalism and community?

What if God is the difference between choice and calling?

What if God is the difference between opinion and truth?

What if God is the difference between taste and beauty?

What if God is the difference between power and justice?

What if God is the difference between want and love?

Would such a God be more like us, or more different?

Can you imagine such a God?



  1. What if God is the difference between opinion and truth?

    This would then imply that our best shot at truth is a connection with God.

    “You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”…

    42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

    – John 8


    Comment by Jonathan Erdman — 29 September 2006 @ 4:24 pm

  2. I’m picturing the mob stoning Stephen, stopping their ears so they can’t hear what he has to say…

    I doubt whether mortal man can know any truth with certainty — that leaves us mired in a world of opinion. We can move in the direction of truth, continually refining our opinions in light of new information and better thinking. The danger comes when we falsely regard opinion as truth, refusing to investigate gaps in what we know, refusing to consider the implications of new information, refusing to acknowledge that we might be wrong. Then we’re no longer moving in the direction of truth. Then we’re most under sway of the father of lies.

    If someone moves continually in the direction of truth, irrespective of the immediate source of any particular approximation to the truth, is that person by definition connected with God?


    Comment by ktismatics — 29 September 2006 @ 4:47 pm

  3. That is definately a question I wrestle with: Is truth a process we are in or is it a location we arrive at?

    In the Scriptures it seems to be both, depending upon what form of truth is in view. So Jesus speaks of those who are “of the truth” (18:37) as if they have arrived at a location. Those who are in this spiritual situatedness, as I call it, are receptive to truth when they hear it. Furthermore, they are receptive to the Christ who is the emobodiment of truth. But doesn’t the fact that we can receive not imply that we are still in process?

    Obviously the Scriptures do not present us as finished products. That happens in the end of all things (if at all!). Qohelet is a work in process and a seeker moving in the direction of truth even though he finds himself moving through traditional religious concepts that he constantly finds destabilized and deconstructed.


    Comment by Jonathan Erdman — 2 October 2006 @ 7:46 pm

  4. I agree with your assessment, but I’ve got to think about it more. Tomorrow.


    Comment by ktismatics — 2 October 2006 @ 9:21 pm

  5. What particularly bugs many people about evangelicals of the more fundamentalist persuasion is that they claim privileged access to truth simply by virtue of being believers. Their resistance to truths (no WMDs in Iraq) or to truth-seeking practices (empirical scientific method) belies their claims, making faith seem like the exact opposite of truth. There’s also the tendency of fundamentalists and empiricisists alike to regard propositions about truth as truth per se.

    Absolute truth is transcendent, and I’m not persuaded that transcendence is possible. The believers, after all, still have to interpret what the Spirit whispers into their hearts. So being “of the truth” has to be about something other than asserting a set of beliefs or propositions, or even maintaining a particular condition of the heart. It’s some kind of outer-directedness that probably isn’t about the self at all. Beyond that I’m not sure I can go right now.


    Comment by ktismatics — 3 October 2006 @ 10:48 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: