No contradiction. We cannot possibly understand. We can’t.
The sort of being we will be in Heaven, in contrast, will be able to understand.
Yes, in Heaven you would be a glorified version of yourself. But the unique you that was created is still you and everything about you led to that. I used to be disturbed by the idea that body and soul are inextricably combined from conception, since I hate my body, but what has happened to me body and soul throughout my existence leads to where I will be in the afterlife.
For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known.
No.
I’m explaining my model of God to you. You cannot reject my model, tell me that this other model of God is the correct one, and then show how flawed that second model is.
No, I disagree. “Omnipotent,” in this context, does not describe a being that can flout the paradox created by the definition you propose. I’m not arguing that it does. If your argument is with someone who simplistically says that “Omnipotent,” literally means that the answer to every single “Can he do _____?” is “Yes,” then find that person and continue the discussion with him.
Yes, I do. As I have conceded above, this is a matter that cannot be reasoned into --although it contains internally consistent beliefs, it’s not testable.
But it isn’t still me. It’s a me that can comprehend some of that which only God can comprehend. A me that understands at least some of the secrets of the universe - a me that’s been transformed so as to be mentally (not that I will have a mind in the same way) transfigured into something very different.
It’s not a glorified version of me. It’s someone completely different that has my memories. Which, I would imagine, would be examined and led to very different conclusions by the being that now has them, due to their supernaturally different viewpoint.
Yep, gigi’s way ahead of me. 1 Cor 9:
The analogy is similar to the one I was offering above. Right now, as physical bodies, we are analogous to the child, who lacks the capacity to understand as opposed to simply lacking the information. When we enter the kingdom of Heaven, we will be the man in the analogy, possessing a form that can understand.
Was the month-old infant Revenant Threshold not you?
Do you think God frowns upon anyone who tries to only believe things that are testable (and have been tested)?
I guessed this might be a response and covered it in advance in that post.
In some sense. We are meant to have faith in Him and trust in Him when we don’t know. Is that what you mean?
How am I supposed to know that “we are meant to have faith in Him and trust in Him”? You could be wrong, after all.
You didn’t.
More specifically, you conceded that it was common usage to call the child and the man the same person, and then pointed out that you, personally, don’t see it that way.
But all I’m doing is using that same model to describe what happens in the change of the self that exist in Heaven. If your worldview resists that, I have no heartburn at all if you were to say that a new person, a new self, is created by the transition, but only after you also explained that this was analogous to the adult being a new person, a new self, that transitioned from the infant.
In conversation, we certainly don’t have any heartburn in pointing to a picture of baby Rev and saying, “That was you when you were eight months old,” and not hearing in response, “Well, no, because although spread and smudging is an issue, it’s pretty clear that as a result of fundamental changes, I am not the person that was in that picture.”
Right?
Because He came and told us.
No. I think that God recognizes that this method of sorting out fact from fiction is immensely valuable. At the same time, I think He can, and has, chosen to create moments that fill people with conviction: moments of grace that aren’t testable for anyone else but fill the individual with certainty.
This is both absolutely true, and absolutely unpersuasive. If you believe then it requires no evidence; if you don’t, then your mere assertion of its truth is no more compelling than your original claim.
I know!
All this means is that you’re worshipping a god who claims to have that power, but doesn’t. We know from the bible (assuming it’s true) that god could - indeed did - originally create the earth as a paradise, but then chose to destroy that paradise, because of the way humans acted in ignorance.
The argument that god is incapable of recreating that paradise, and yet is worthy of worship, is wholly unpersuasive.
It’s analogous, for sure, but I only use it because it is the closest I can think of of looking at that kind of situation without getting into science fiction-style ideas.
I would say (as I understand the theology) the new person created after death by this knowledge is reasonably analogous to the adult created via life experiences - but not similar enough that my comfort with one would indicate my comfort with the other. I bring up the adult/child change because that’s, in effect, already a situation in which I wouldn’t say those were the same person - even more so than that would be, to borrow a term, the result of my glorification.
Sure - but what we use in conversation and what we would use to accurately describe something are not always quite in sync. You would not get that answer in casual conversation; in a debate, yes, despite those things I’m not the person in that picture. And if someone were to say to me, “I intend to manipulate your mind such that you become that person.”, I would consider that to be murder (and the birth of a new person, though for obvious reasons I’m less concerned about that point).
Even more so that that would glorified me not be me, by definition; glorified me includes differences that are impossible in everyday reality, and explicitly pervasive and all-encompassing in their nature.
But what might seem evil might actually have some better, overall end goal. Something good might likewise only be there to serve that purpose, its apparent goodness merely a side-effect.
If we know that God has created a world in which natural disasters, diseases, and other creation-based evils exist but do so for a greater purpose - who is to say he wouldn’t also lie to us in order to further that grand plan? If he is prepared to kill in order to fulfill the grandest of plans, I would imagine he would be capable of lying.
Such as either lacking free will or being without the desire to do anything wrong.
Plus there’s issues of consent. I think were I to drug someone so as to alter their emotional and mental state without my informed consent, I would imagine that most of us would consider that to be wrong. Do I get to go to Heaven and say “Thanks for the afterlife - but, if you don’t mind, I’d prefer not to have the changes you would like to press upon me, though I appreciate they’re kindly meant.”