Summary of text [comment] pages 49 and 50

[So, let me transform my list from two items to two columns.

The title of one column is the quality of the One True God of Greek logic: transcendence. Under this title I write the word “majesty”.

I title the other column is “immanence”. In this column I list various scenes from the Bible. Yahweh is portrayed as a God who yearns to create a people, fashions a covenant with them, then prospers or punishes his people. Jesus is portrayed as a scapegoat, humble, submitting to the will of the Father, and powerless.

Given this list, what do we intuitively want to do?

We want to keep Jesus on the immanent list. After all, he is one of us.

We want to shift the Bible’s portrait of Yahweh to the transcendence column.

Once this is done, Yahweh becomes a mimic of Zeus; temperamental, demanding, capricious, majestic and transcendent. But this mimic is not the Biblical Yahweh.

What does this imply?

Greek philosophy is not readily divorced from Greek mythology.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 47, 48 and 49

[Does the juxtaposition of God’s transcendence and God’s immanence make God mysterious?

I take a sheet of paper and make a list. The title of the list is “What makes God mysterious”. I list the two items.

But, then I have this weird thought: How can I possibly check off both items without realizing that the list itself is the principle that brings these two together?

I see two items. Do I even register the third?

Yet this third itself is also conveys the mystery of God. The ink and paper that the mystery is written literally brings the two items together.

Schoonenberg did not quite realize that the mystery of God (the list & the paper) underlies the Immanent (the Semitic view) and the Transcendent (the Greek view).

Oh, but “the mystery of God” also contextualizes. It is the title of the list.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 47, 48 and 49

[So, let me propose the following theatrical production as a mystery play:

Greek linear thought, following the intrinsic logic of the concept of One God, deduced the qualities of majesty and transcendence. These qualities are necessary for logical truth.

The stage is veiled by a curtain painted with an image Zeus or Jupiter, poised to cast bolts of lightning.  The sky flashes. How transcendent. How majestic. All other possibilities have been discarded. We recognize the One Transcendent Majestic God as the One True God.

Then the curtains parts, and what do we see? A poor woman delivering her baby in a shed.

To me, this theatrical moment expresses the Semitic point of view, a juxtaposition of images asking the witness to recognize the possibilities.

Recognize the possibility of Jesus.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 47, 48 and 49

If God is not harmed, then who is harmed?

Schoonenberg noted: Ultimately it is sinful man himself that is harmed by sin. (This is explicit in Jer. 7:18 and Job 35:5-8.)

Schoonenberg continued: We are standing here before the mystery of God himself, of his transcendence and immanence. There is no possibility of solving this question like a math problem. But, we may try to appreciate the mystery.

Summary of text [comment] pages 47, 48 and 49

Does sin affect God?

The Scriptures say yes. God emotionally reacts to provocation and disdain. God may be rash, slow to anger, and regret prior stances. Yahweh exhibits anger, pity, jealousy and commitment.

But does that mean that sin affects God?

From the Greek point of view [a linear development of ideas honing the possibility of recognition], God’s majesty and transcendence implies that He endures no injury and no harm.

Summary of text [comment] page 47

Schoonenberg’s essential definition gives rise to another set of questions about the relations between God and humans:

1. Does sin really effect God?
2. Does God affect sin? Does He cause it, since He is the universal cause?
3. What do we mean when we say that “God punishes sin”?

Summary of text [comment] page 47

After all these blogs, let me again state the two points in Schoonenberg’s list:

Sin is an opposition to God’s salvific activity and to His creation, hence a crime against the world and against humans.

The opposition (to God) derives from our freedom. The opposition materializes on a variety of levels. It both resembles and differs from evil in the prepersonal level.

Summary of text [comment] page 47

[Natural evil is scandalous.

The “the scandal of natural evil” inspired individuals to turn away from Christianity.

Where did they go?

People were called to other religions, ones that had the audacity to call God “evil” and to propose cures to the “evils of His creation”.

These modern religions called themselves “not religious”.

Each variation of the postreligionist Enlightenment Godhead proposed cures for the evils of His creation.

Each produced evils that dwarfed the evils they were designed to cure.

Despite the disasters of the past two centuries, these think^groups continue flourish, longing for the infusion of sovereign power, longing to become a Public Cult, longing to materialize think^pro-objects.

Is this what the Peace of Westphalia wrought?]

Summary of text [comment] page 47

The scandal of natural, or “prepersonal”, evil is a case in point.

How could a God who called his creation “good” have included physical evil?

New theories in science were popularized as scandalous. But the scandal is obviated by the notion that God creates spontaneous orders; something that we humans also do, but can never take credit for, because we are embedded within them.

There is an analogy between moral and natural evil. They both share the same nested categorical structure.

There is also a collision between moral and natural evil. They intersect. They intersect precisely at “the scandal of natural evil”.

In nature, bad events happen.

In morals, we are limited and selfish. We cause bad things to happen.]

Summary of text [comment] page 47

[This leads to a question:

What about scientific discovery?

Scientific discoveries alter the way we express law^essential, especially those features that exist independently of us. In Latin, the term is ens reale.

Notably, there is a difference in speed of response for each type of think.

For example, accounts of a new discovery may give political or some other advantage to a particular think^group. They interpret law^essential in their own favor, thus producing an affirmative form of law^denial. They will claim the discovery works to their benefit. Once these claims are debunked, these interpretations end up as fodder for think^divine. The claim itself remains in law^essential.

This fits the definition of “scandal”: “a fascination of the surface that blocks access to seeing deeper”.]