I am relieved to hear that you agree that God is, in himself, incomprehensible. That was the point of my original post. Mysteries should not be treated as puzzles. Perhaps I should have left out the words "the doctrine of" because that appears to be the sticking point here. But my point remains.
@nostr:nevent1qqsq7md5en6r6s5z2pmvuf6sfkxqxypzadcrpt9lrugfm4paf26wsyqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzpmdfdjun4mxavxk7ps0e62lal9d8uak0rj5fsgxr3ehye6j4crq9qvzqqqqqqynm0fu6
The mystery behind the doctrine is, in itself, incomprehensible. That is not to say that we cannot arrive at knowable propositions. In attempting to reconcile propositions that, to our finite mind, seem incompatible, we turn mysteries into puzzles. We must instead embrace our finitude and bask in the wonder of God's transcendence.
Lest we continue this exercise in miscommunication--if you agree with what is stated and defended (better than I have done) in those articles I linked, then we are in friendly agreement and we need not proceed. If you don't, we probably won't via this medium, so again we can simply let this rest.
freeborn | ἐλεύθερος
npub1ak…r0gwg
2024-03-02 16:15:59
in reply to nevent1q…6cx8
Author Public Key
npub1ak5kewf6anwkrt0qc8ua907ljkn7wm83e2ycyrpcumjvaf2upszs8r0gwgPublished at
2024-03-02 16:15:59Event JSON
{
"id": "f1437752fe8ed3f48c173f4ce2fbbbb28480ffaae194d17a228ea4d3d46e7775",
"pubkey": "eda96cb93aecdd61ade0c1f9d2bfdf95a7e76cf1ca89820c38e6e4cea55c0c05",
"created_at": 1709396159,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3ffa391b2ce236cd9d8ba689de6f3a7efebf76acde437b638ee93390f46bcc8c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1e5b76d2c770013c81fe2d86d962ee79cb0cce44e891c797d356d94b6ad2b316"
],
[
"e",
"d134cf518aa341885db3c7dcbd01281b70d80980fa8e5ecd952349ae4f00b061",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"8f51dad4266e6616cb461a8c922977dbdb041b1857260f7592ac72ae1b40587f"
],
[
"p",
"1a65d3a81c5d553d922635dfff929ab3ea30e50a10ee2c5c7de67d7de6c6de76"
],
[
"p",
"854043ae8f1f97430ca8c1f1a090bdde6488bd5115c7a45307a2a212750ae4cb"
],
[
"p",
"eda96cb93aecdd61ade0c1f9d2bfdf95a7e76cf1ca89820c38e6e4cea55c0c05"
]
],
"content": "I am relieved to hear that you agree that God is, in himself, incomprehensible. That was the point of my original post. Mysteries should not be treated as puzzles. Perhaps I should have left out the words \"the doctrine of\" because that appears to be the sticking point here. But my point remains.\n\n@nostr:nevent1qqsq7md5en6r6s5z2pmvuf6sfkxqxypzadcrpt9lrugfm4paf26wsyqpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzpmdfdjun4mxavxk7ps0e62lal9d8uak0rj5fsgxr3ehye6j4crq9qvzqqqqqqynm0fu6\n\nThe mystery behind the doctrine is, in itself, incomprehensible. That is not to say that we cannot arrive at knowable propositions. In attempting to reconcile propositions that, to our finite mind, seem incompatible, we turn mysteries into puzzles. We must instead embrace our finitude and bask in the wonder of God's transcendence.\n\nLest we continue this exercise in miscommunication--if you agree with what is stated and defended (better than I have done) in those articles I linked, then we are in friendly agreement and we need not proceed. If you don't, we probably won't via this medium, so again we can simply let this rest. ",
"sig": "35b899cd32649fe43d8a18c4f22c06f8615fef4b58d9ad18e79636d809a45e3d5c184e05a250b89dae4983bd8840174df4ea151bc6fe4c9afc0c163e5bf24b76"
}