Our language creates- thinking outside the box writing 138

How do we know about someone we have never seen? How do we know when it is Him speaking to us or just the voice in our heads? How do we know that the voice in our heads is simply coming from something we have learned in the past? I really do not believe we can have an idea about something without a description of that thing in words. This is my point that anything that we use to describe a thing or a personality comes from a vocabulary that was created. We can say there may be a vocabulary that is outside of our box of the total vocabulary that everyone uses but if it is not communicated to us as we hear it in our vocabulary then it is the same thing as saying that there is no basis for it to be true. The void or unexplainable communication is nothing.

God had an idea before it was put into reality. If we say that God is totally unexplainable then we would have no concept of God as we speak. To be able to say God means that we are distinguishing between no god and God. If God did not exist then we wouldnt have God in our vocabulary. My point is that instead of saying that when we describe what God says about Himself in the logical vocabulary He has given to us to describe Him that this cannot be because God has not revealed Himself in our vocabulary. We should be saying that God gave us a vocabulary to explain Him enough so that it proves the logic of how we use this vocabulary that He gave us. Why would we limit the ideas in distinguishing God because we only accept this small box of ideas? We put a box around God when we say that the description that we have about God must not be true because God cannot be understood in arguing against the ideas that we introduce  that you do not agree with.

Everything that exist must have a reason. We describe every evidence of a created thing with words that give it a descriptive personality. Instead of using the argument that we cannot understand the thing God has created...we do not have a rite to describe that thing because our view of the description is always limited by your argument that it is a mystery so you reject an acceptable description then in a sense you are denying the purpose for which we distinguish who we are in comparison to other created objects. Why not just say Hey I never thought of that the way you describe it as you see Gods gifted language that you have used to describe it? Why do you just ignore the description and put it in the category of mystery because you are too lazy( not with malice) to examine it with your own ideas? Its wrong to limit ideas by crying mystery.  

Reply Quote Notify