Untitled

by ADVENT MKADA·5 views·Updated Apr 1, 2023

Create your own

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated

a very good afternoon to you all.
Um,
the topic that, uh, I'll be, uh, presenting today, uh, to, uh
is, uh, on God,
we are trying to understand God, and, uh,
we are going to use, uh, many scholars,
and, uh, some of those scholars are theologians themselves in trying to,
uh understand,
uh, who God is.
So,
uh, the first slide,
what is the main issue?
The main question or issue that the author is addressing
is to try
and understand who God is.
What is pertinent in this discussion
and unanimously agreed by the philosophers
is that God cannot be fully grasped.
So that is what, uh is very important.
In this discussion,
God cannot be himself a worldly reality,
something qualitatively similar to human nature.
Human beings can only describe certain attributes of who God is,
but they cannot comprehend him fully, to be able to give a whole definition
of who he is.
So what does the article say about God?
The article appeals to the Catholic Christian tradition
that argues that the most properly speaking
God is strange
and personal power revealed
in the total event of Jesus Christ. So in other words, the article is saying that
we can,
The more closer we can understand. God
is,
uh, when we look at Jesus Christ,
that's the closest
that we can understand God
in Jesus. It's a union of two natures
human and divine
two modes of existence which is
created and uncreative,
which come together
in the closest possible unity
without mixing and mingling
or confusing,
reinforcing the idea that still, God is not a worldly reality
and not similar to human nature.
Hence, still, God cannot be comprehended fully
not. From what I said.
I am saying God cannot be comprehended fully. But I am not saying that
people cannot comprehend God.
They might see something of God in nature,
something of God, uh, in human beings.
But
what, uh uh the author is arguing is that
people cannot fully grasp
or people cannot fully,
uh,
uh comprehend who God is fully.
So,
uh, I'm going to look at what some
theologians and, uh, what some scholars have said,
uh, in their bid to try to comprehend God,
Thomas
Aquinas described God as I
as
a
meaning that he is being itself,
and an
also had a conception of God in his
prologue
as
that which no other greater can be taught.
And his narrative is
illuminating and fascinating in that
it demonstrates the impossibility of capturing the true God in the needs of mind.
Augustine describes God
as
in
at Superior, someone
Mao
translated to me
closer to me than I am to myself and higher than anything I could imagine
in a way to comprehend more the nature of God.
And in trying to understand God, Quina
sums up that God
can never be defined
and is essentially
and not simply
provisionally
incomprehensible.
Acquire
us, persists that we can understand God
to an extent
by his attributes, such as the divine simplicity,
immutability
omniscient
omnipotence.
And the author concludes that
he is. Love is portrayed in Christ
and the way the holy Trinity of the Father,
the son
and the Holy Spirit works.
So this is, um
what, uh, Robert Barron
is saying that,
um,
God is love is portrayed in Christ
and the way the holy spirit of the Father, the son
and the spirit and the Holy Spirit works.
Then we look at what, uh,
and be,
uh, say.
He suggests that
when listing the attributes of God
the starting point should be his self
existence,
as
which implies his eternal
and unconditioned nature.
So, uh, this is what he suggests that when we talk of God,
uh, the starting point should be his, uh, self existence, which he calls
a,
uh, which implies that,
uh, God is eternal.
And, uh, he has an unconditioned nature.
That is why probably it's very difficult to comprehend him
because, uh, he is not conditioned. His nature is is not conditioned.
Like maybe probably our nature.
We are conditioned, but,
uh, with God,
he was always there. He is eternal.
We will always be there, and then he cannot be conditioned.
Uh,
so the conditions that affect us
do not affect God.
He goes on to consider the following additional attributes.
Creator being the source of all
that
composes his creation,
crash your ex
and the sustainer of what he has brought into being,
uh, persona. He's the persona
loving
go God and Holy.
So this is what, uh, he goes on to say that
first
we talk of a say
that God cannot hear unconditioned matter.
And yet, uh, when we talk of his attributes again, we should consider
that he's the creator
being the source of all that composes the creation
and also the sustainment of what he has brought into being personal, loving,
good and holy.
So, in other words, it's, uh what he is showing is that
we cannot limit God like,
uh, to say that, uh, God is just found here. God is just found in this.
God is everywhere. He's even the sustainer of what he creates.
And everything was created by him. He's the one who created everything.
So, in other words, um, I think,
uh, this, uh, sort of like, um uh
supports what Igne
says that
we have to see God in everything
because
we cannot condition him.
He is in everything that we see. Everything that has been created.
Uh, God, is there everything that we see in nature? Everything growing
God resides there, so God cannot be conditioned like us.
And then Bekoff also starts with self
existence,
but moves on
to imitable
infinity,
which implies perfection,
eternity and omnipresence unity.
He then analyses a series of intellectual attributes,
knowledge, omniscience,
wisdom,
ferocity
and then
the moral attributes of goodness,
including love, grace, mercy and patience.
Uh, holiness
and righteousness
before dealing finally
with his sovereignity.
So this is how, uh, they describe,
uh, God,
Gregory of
NSA
was one of the first theologians to argue that God is infinite.
His main argument for the infinity of God, which can be found
in
Guinness.
You know, Miss, is that God's goodness is limitless.
And
as God's goodness is essential,
God is also
limitless.
Comment. Uh, no one theologian can give a definition of God, like I said,
without describing his attributes.
Even so, when God's attributes help to comprehend him,
no one,
no one can grasp him fully.
The article managed to tackle the subject in question very well,
because there is a logical and coherent way of argument
developing, starting from the early philosophers and theologians
trying to to define God like Ansel Mak
and uh uh And, uh, you know, following how
their understanding was developed,
Uh, when he concludes
with the gospel of John who simply defined,
uh, him by the attribute of love. So I think, uh, the article has managed to do that.
Also, the article manages to use the scripture in supporting arguments,
for example, the attributes of
IIT creation,
among others.
The article's arguments are well presented.
Therefore, it is easy to follow and understand
the issues in question.
However, there is
a helpless feeling to both the reader
and I think, the author, because
there is a general feeling
that we are trying to define the complex,
something that cannot be fully understood and something beyond our grasp.
Yet
the attempt is
nece
necessary and leads
to a certain level of understanding
that we cannot measure still,
And I think that brings satisfaction that God is beyond our human understanding.
So there is a hopelessness that you feel,
um,
no matter how you try, no matter the words, you you actually,
uh, cannot get
the language that can, uh, fully describe who God is
if you say he's immutable.
If you say he's the creator of all things, if you say he's not conditioned.
So uh, it's just using his attributes.
But then you cannot describe him like using a word or a sentence.
Still, it will not be sufficient.
So the sources that I used, uh,
was the book
companion to Catholicism.
Uh, and the article by Robert Barron
um,
and others, like a guide to convention and practise,
uh
Ziga
part one,
uh, God. Chapter in the
in the biblical, uh,
belief in God.
Introduction to Christianity.
Uh, second revised FA.
So this is my presentation. Uh, on God,
Thank you for listening.
Uh, I hope you have managed to grasp one or two things.
Uh, have a good day. Thank you.