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: ℕ. 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.