8 views
PROBLEM OF EVIL - The Oneness
The Oneness of God cannot be understood by us completely, but does not mean judging God inadequately.
🧩 There is a difference between "inability judging completely" and "limiting judgement". The first is to realize one side & accept the possibility of the other side, while the second is to accept one side & making denial to the other side
Although we have limitation to acknowledge God completely, but we can assess God adequately.
That is by knowing God incompletely but without refusing the possibility of God.
That was said God did bad thing, God was bad, this accusation should not negate the other side of God's kindness.
When we accused God, God did wrong, then was God not good? It confirms the allegations of one side but reject the other side of God's kindness, this is the same as accepting one side and making denial to the other side. While God as wholeness cannot be reduced, so it is impossible for one-sided rejection / acceptance.
🧩 Members of the set of numbers cannot be accepted just one number, and reject other possible number.
... We have limitation perceiving all numbers, but that does not mean eliminating the possibility another number. Perceiving only some of numbers, does not mean eliminating possible numbers.
Likewise our judgment for plants. That the plant only grows but can't be considered as living plant? It's true when there is no evidence of life in plants (falsification).
But when we saw the goodness as the other side of God, then we cannot judge God from one side and negates God's kindness.
The two or more characters of a thing, then the affirmation to one of two or more characters of a thing, should not negate the other character of a thing itself.
Accusing God did badness to us, it is an inadequate assessment, because the accusation negates the other side of God - the goodness, in which it is also the real one part of God.
You are this & that, therefore you are this without that. It's absurd, a chaos of reasoning - a contradiction.
So improper judging to God is invalid judgement, and must be sought for ways of understanding that does not negate the other side. Example: God is not wrong but God tested us, because this did not negate (the other side of) the goodness of God
🧩 If an affirmation negates the second affirmations, while the two affirmations are a unity, then the first affirmation is not as should be - wrong, misunderstood.
In a short, we cannot "restrict the assessment" to unity, except only "assessing as possibly as we can"
© Seremonia
🧩 There is a difference between "inability judging completely" and "limiting judgement". The first is to realize one side & accept the possibility of the other side, while the second is to accept one side & making denial to the other side
Although we have limitation to acknowledge God completely, but we can assess God adequately.
That is by knowing God incompletely but without refusing the possibility of God.
That was said God did bad thing, God was bad, this accusation should not negate the other side of God's kindness.
When we accused God, God did wrong, then was God not good? It confirms the allegations of one side but reject the other side of God's kindness, this is the same as accepting one side and making denial to the other side. While God as wholeness cannot be reduced, so it is impossible for one-sided rejection / acceptance.
🧩 Members of the set of numbers cannot be accepted just one number, and reject other possible number.
... We have limitation perceiving all numbers, but that does not mean eliminating the possibility another number. Perceiving only some of numbers, does not mean eliminating possible numbers.
Likewise our judgment for plants. That the plant only grows but can't be considered as living plant? It's true when there is no evidence of life in plants (falsification).
But when we saw the goodness as the other side of God, then we cannot judge God from one side and negates God's kindness.
The two or more characters of a thing, then the affirmation to one of two or more characters of a thing, should not negate the other character of a thing itself.
Accusing God did badness to us, it is an inadequate assessment, because the accusation negates the other side of God - the goodness, in which it is also the real one part of God.
You are this & that, therefore you are this without that. It's absurd, a chaos of reasoning - a contradiction.
So improper judging to God is invalid judgement, and must be sought for ways of understanding that does not negate the other side. Example: God is not wrong but God tested us, because this did not negate (the other side of) the goodness of God
🧩 If an affirmation negates the second affirmations, while the two affirmations are a unity, then the first affirmation is not as should be - wrong, misunderstood.
In a short, we cannot "restrict the assessment" to unity, except only "assessing as possibly as we can"
© Seremonia
