Waxing Theological (An Anselmian Plea)

skagit-valley-daffodils-5

Consider the set of all elements that actually exist (as opposed to possibilia and impossibilia) in our particular spatiotemporal reality. According to the axiom of choice, we should be able to order our set, according to whatever well-defined criteria we choose. Let’s choose, for the sake of argument, godliness. It’s not necessary for us to be able to pick out God specifically, using this process, any more than it’s necessary for us to be able to pick the largest natural number in the set: . We can be certain that there is a largest natural number, and we can name it x, even if we can’t know what it is. Let’s call the most godly element of our set of all actualia: God.

This looks like an informalized math proof with lots of technical nonsense, and maybe it approaches that, but the basic idea was laid down by a geezer named Anselm of Canterbury, long before Georg Cantor was ever conceived. It was part of this argument here. I think it’s a good argument. It’s certainly an interesting one, because people are still talking about it, a thousand years after it was first written.

Down below, Brother Jason wrote:

The Lord said Himself Boxer that “I am the truth, the light, and the way….no one comes to the Father except through me”

I can accept that Jesus said that… Jesus being a literary character, who was talking to a specific group of people (i.e. Christians). Jesus didn’t write it or say it to me.

Some time later, Sharkly wrote:

I have frequently been pointing out that the answer to many questions is the foundational truth, that the Bible never tells us that women are in God’s image, while it repeatedly tells us that men are in his image, using more than one word for man, and in two different languages. Also, the Bible basically tells us women are not the image and glory of God, but the glory of man, in 1 Corinthians 11:7 and surrounding verses.

Women and men are not equal. Men were created first in the image and glory of God, and women were then created from the man as a second class of humans.

What does “made in the image of God” mean? No one knows. When people use it in common parlance, it makes me imagine God as a man, or at least as male. We are tempted to anthropomorphize everything, from Disney’s mice to consumer goods. I think this is a terrible mistake when applied to God.

Nature and simple observation reminds us that both men and women are incomplete alone. Men and women were designed to pair up and mate for life. The individual is not the sum total of our existence. We are social creatures, and the dyad is the basic unit.

MGTOW bros can mock me for telling this basic truth, but really, this whole blog is designed to circumvent the natural order of things, given that survival trumps completion. None of this would be necessary without the prior innovation of divorce courts and violence against women act and child support and cheap abortions.

If God were male, then he would be incomplete, as human men are incomplete. Envisioning God as a male begs the question as to where his female consort is. If he doesn’t have one, then what’s wrong with him? If he does have one, then shouldn’t we be praying to her? If there are two, then neither is the greatest element in our set. There should be something that’s whole in one.

There is a greatest element in our set, and Jesus isn’t it, for the simple matter that Jesus was male.

God is not male. God is far beyond any of our human imperfections.

Not only do we know he’s not a man, we know he’s nothing we can describe or categorize, because every attempt at description limits him in our ontology. Saying that something is x is to say that something is not (not x). The New Testament gives us some descriptions of Jesus. God? Not really.

I have argued strongly and convincingly for the Bible only ever telling us that men are in the image of God, and that 1 Corinthians 11:7 and surrounding passage make it clear to all but the most resistant reader that women are not.

To say that “men are in the image of God” is only meaningful if ‘the image of God’ is well defined, and it’s not. Sharkly seems to be recursively defining this phrase by analogizing it to male hominids. Is that a sound attempt? I suspect not.

The Bible, like all other religious texts, doesn’t strike me as the communication of God to men, anyway. It’s much more likely that it was written by men who were trying their best to ask the big questions about their creator. That doesn’t make it less valuable, but it does make it much more accessible.

If there is a God (and Anselm’s proof suggests there is), then he’s probably as unapproachable to us as ‘the greatest natural number’ or ‘the furthest contiguous clump of matter from the Earth.’ Not only do we not have knowledge of such stuff, we know for a certainty that we never will have knowledge of these things, and we just have to accept our limitations. You are the border collie, sitting on the hill, who will never understand quantum field theory, no matter how studious you might be.

e07a13e7cda559397e84c56f89dae730

Author: Boxer

Sinister All-Male Dancer. Secret King of all Gamma Males. Member of Frankfurt School. Your Fave Contrarian!

8 thoughts on “Waxing Theological (An Anselmian Plea)”

  1. Boxer, You provide interesting reading.
    Of course I disagree with some of it.
    I like that you brought up Saint Anselm. One of my names is a derivation of his.

    “The Bible, like all other religious texts, doesn’t strike me as the communication of God to men, anyway.”

    I accept that it is, so there is where I will lose most of my reasoning with you, because I use God’s word, as my “Bible” to base things off of. I try to argue from God’s revelation first, and then from my own reasoning when there are things I don’t see covered in the Bible.

    If God were male, then he would be incomplete, as human men are incomplete. Envisioning God as a male begs the question as to where his female consort is. If he doesn’t have one, then what’s wrong with him? If he does have one, then shouldn’t we be praying to her? If there are two, then neither is the greatest element in our set. There should be something that’s whole in one.
    There is a greatest element in our set, and Jesus isn’t it, for the simple matter that Jesus was male.
    God is not male. God is far beyond any of our human imperfections.

    If you suppose Jesus to have been incomplete because He was male, you would think, that as an example for us, He would have gotten married here on earth. The Catholics claim Mary was both sinless and widowed. Jesus could have married Mary, both having been sinless according to Catholicism. LOL

    However, the Bible makes me believe that Jesus was not incomplete.

    Colossians 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
    Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
    Colossians 2: 8 Beware lest any man [like our dear Boxer] spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

    Muh Bible says Boxer is one of the Spiritually-Uncircumcised evidenced by his not putting off the bodily sins of the flesh.(Fornication, Adultery …)
    1 Corinthians 6:16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
    Sorry for that rabbit trail. The point is the Bible tells me Jesus was both male and “all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”. And we too can become complete, lacking nothing, in Christ. Having God remove the detracting spiritual-foreskin of the flesh through regeneration from death through Adam unto life again, by God’s life giving Spirit.
    Join the kingdom of those who have their spirits eternally circumcised into covenant with Christ God’s Son.

  2. For those interested, I addressed the root question here. More or less, a summary of what I wrote is that “masculine” and “feminine” are more in relationship to certain qualities than anything to do with physical sexual characteristics. Whether we (as men or women) choose to act in those qualities is dependent on how much we are willing to conform to those things. For the rest of what I would have to say in response to this:

    >If God were male, then he would be incomplete, as human men are incomplete. Envisioning God as a male begs the question as to where his female consort is. If he doesn’t have one, then what’s wrong with him? If he does have one, then shouldn’t we be praying to her? If there are two, then neither is the greatest element in our set. There should be something that’s whole in one.

    The symbolism and nature of the Trinity points to this picture. God is not in isolation, nor Jesus, nor the Holy Ghost/Spirit. Three yet one, or a community. Again you can’t apply physical sexual characteristics to it. The Church integrates and brings together, hence it’s a feminine entity. Hence, the Scriptures envision a marriage between Christ and the Church.

  3. “To say that “men are in the image of God” is only meaningful if ‘the image of God’ is well defined, and it’s not. “

    While I largely agree that the image of God is not well-defined, the Bible is not completely silent on what this means. It’s just a bit vague. It’s often implicit rather than explicit.

    The language of image in both Hebrew and Greek has the connotation of a copied representation. An image, like that of a picture on a page, a reflection in a mirror, or a likeness in a statue. This visual metaphor suggests that, while we are not God, we are like God in some fundamental way.

    “For in him dwelleth…”

    Boxer noted that Jesus was male and God is not. To dwell within implies a separation. So for God to dwell within Jesus is to say that Jesus represented God, not that God is male. You saw Jesus, you saw God. This is what Hebrews 1:3 says:

    “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being…”

    Notice the term representation, or image. Jesus uses similar language in the John’s gospel. The concept of dwelling within is found in the evangelical Christians referring to being saved as “Jesus coming into your heart.”

    God and humans are thus mutually compatible in some way. What way could that be? The Bible identifies many attributes of God that are shared with man. God has (Spiritual) life, love, and the ability to create. However, the Bible is explicit on the most important thing: God is spirit and so are we. Being spiritual beings is what makes God approachable to us. Jesus was a complete image of God. Jesus also promised that we would become like him.

  4. While you guys are correct that we don’t know exactly what the “image of God” specifically means. That does not make it unimportant.
    I believe it is foundational. So foundational, that God speaks of man being the image of God thrice in the very first chapter of the Bible. The only thing I saw mentioned more is God’s method of creation: And God said … and their was … and God saw that it was good.
    Genesis 1:26a And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
    The plainest reading is that an image is something that can be seen or imagined. and perhaps that is why It isn’t more fully described, because it really is as simple as men bear a natural resemblance to God their Father. And this resemblance should not be covered when entreating with our Father who art in heaven.

    Separately, Boxer, my mention of your sin, is not to be taken as an insult or as an ad hominem, but since the text I quoted made mention of bodily sins, I just used you as a ready example. I love you buddy! And my hope would be that one day you will be Boxer with a body submitted unto God. I feel for you, and have heard your story about how you had intended to marry your Mormon sweetheart and be buried together near the Mormon temple. The good news is that God can make your body into a temple of His Holy Spirit. You can be His temple wherever God leads you. You can make peace with God by befriending His Son.

    Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

  5. If you suppose Jesus to have been incomplete because He was male, you would think, that as an example for us, He would have gotten married here on earth. The Catholics claim Mary was both sinless and widowed. Jesus could have married Mary, both having been sinless according to Catholicism. LOL

    I realize you’re mocking Catholics, but while this line of reasoning is hateful and disrespectful, isn’t entirely ridiculous, and it leads to an important point.

    If one can approach God through Jesus, the man, then why can’t one approach god through other men and women? Mary is a specific example, but there are other saints. I’ve known a great number of decent people who are now passed on. If worship of Jesus is O.K., why not worship Uncle Boris, for all the same reasons? (Assuming Boris lived an exemplary life.)

    Viewing Jesus as God necessarily leads to polytheism, and perhaps to pantheism. Not that I have any great problem with the practice, but we should be honest with ourselves as to what we’re doing.

    Separately, Boxer, my mention of your sin, is not to be taken as an insult or as an ad hominem, but since the text I quoted made mention of bodily sins, I just used you as a ready example. I love you buddy!

    The love of the Christians I can do without. Thanks all the same.

  6. If one can approach God through Jesus, the man, then why can’t one approach god through other men and women?
    John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
    Jesus claims He is the only way to the Father.

    What is the picture about? I’m unaware of what is being related there.

    BTW, we Christians have been brought up in apostate churches, so we have never really seen the love of Christ lived out or taught correctly. It is no wonder we are so offensive. We have to learn for ourselves, directly from the Bible, to love like Christ, but even He was offensive to most and was executed at the demand of an angry mob. Thankfully you are only asked to accept Christ, for salvation, you don’t have to approve of his followers. Working on loving the brethren is a later task of sanctification, and it ain’t easy. I’m still working on that one.

  7. >BTW, we Christians have been brought up in apostate churches, so we have never really seen the love of Christ lived out or taught correctly.

    This point is ever so important. I know personally if I didn’t seek out Christ instead of just take the “believers” for what they are, I would have never accepted anything that is truly Christian. I think this is the case with most people. They step into the “churches” and see garbage that’s worse than the world that they know isn’t right. They also reject Christ’s ways in a lot of respects, but that’s a lesser number. Right now, the churches are so messed up with people going after their own ways and thoughts instead of actually following Christ to be of any use to a true seeker. The same is true in relationship to Christ Himself. There are the ones that are actively warning, like myself. But the day will come that Christ will deal with things. This passage exists in Scripture, which I think points to this exact apostasy:

    Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.  (Matt 7:21-23)

    This one brings me to examine myself in fear of whether I’m following after Christ or not. It’s a reminder that a lot of others need to take to heart, but don’t. (this points to the general exact apostasy/false gospel the churches are operating under, but it’s a topic for another time.)

    >If one can approach God through Jesus, the man, then why can’t one approach god through other men and women?

    The simple answer to this one is who is doing the saving? This is the thing that has been lost for hundreds of years to Christians. Men always lift themselves up and substitute themselves for Christ. What is Jesus? God who became man that walked the earth perfectly without sin and was sacrificed on the Cross to pay justice for the sins of the world. What am I? Or Pastor Bob? Or Mary? Or the saints? Or anyone else? Sinful people in need of repentance, no different than I am. So who is more worthy to be followed? This is the big lesson I caught that finally led me to pursue a Christian life – namely reading about David and all the sins he did and God still calling him a man after His own heart. No other man or entity created by the hands of men or even God’s created Church (it’s different than these things men call “churches”) has saved a single soul or ever will. So why should I go to them? Unfortunately, so many Christians search out true grace in other places, and lose their chance at finding the real grace of Christ that a Christian should have (a little preview of a post I have in the bin waiting to be written).

    Now I will point out, that Christ has left us on earth to be His representatives in that people are not to approach God through other Christians but the Christians are to point others towards Jesus. The problem in that right now is that Christians (aggregate) are doing a terrible job of that. The ideal is that men should be reflections of Christ in the things they do and the things they say. By doing that they should point people to Christ instead of themselves in line with Scriptural example (Acts 14:8-18 for one example of many). Notably, this is also one of Dalrock’s huge failings in the “Christian” column for his blog in gathering people that follow after him.

  8. “What is the picture about? I’m unaware of what is being related there.”

    Boxer is making an observation about the lack of love and charitability in Christians.

    Lexet accused Warhorn of lying and demanded they repent. As this is a lie, I attempted to tell Lexet that he was wrong. I linked to my first comment under Boxer’s post. Lexet called Boxer’s commentary garbage (without evidence) and refused to see my point.

    As I’ve pointed out many times recently, Christians are repeatedly told not to judge, as this leads to hypocrisy (as in the example above). If someone sins, you are to confront them directly, one-on-one and try to work it out. This is what I did with Lexet. Failing this you may bring additional witnesses. Failing that, then and only then may the church judge. Only then, if your brother does not repent, you may treat him the way you treat a heathen. Christians have no other grounds for punishment, as punishment is the domain of God and civil authorities. You also have the option to forgive the person.

    I do not judge my heathen friends and I have many. I am clear about my beliefs, but, like Brother Sharkly, I don’t brow-beat them. Brother Boxer knows where God stands on fornication, so there is nothing more to say. Paul was very clear that fixing their sins is not our primary responsibility. This is what it means to treat them like heathens. We are concerned, first and foremost, about setting an example among ourselves and fixing our own problems. Our loving example should be enough to catch the attention of those who are not Christians.

    So when Boxer says…

    “The love of the Christians I can do without. Thanks all the same.”

    …this is what he refers to.

Shout!

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.