Not The Creator?

God, it is stated, has two names, one properly in positive properties, the other properly containing the sets of the octal of positive properties.

By Anselm's argument, God is "A being greater than which can not be imagined". (It is impossible to comprehend the second closure by ascending a poset of positive properties, but on faith alone it can be accepted that there is such a further closure. Then I reach an impasse, because it is impossible to give worship to the creator with the "new name" that has shown us only the old.

In knowledge of a new name (that second closure), it is impossible to conceive of a God great enough to direct worship towards. God, becomes insufficient and it is to be realised that God, who made man thus without the ability to worship Him, if He be the creator, desires no worship for Himself, or He is not the creator and this is, we would assume, not a contradiction, but then we only have an impasse.

Either man is created without the ability to comprehend and worship God, or God is not the creator. We are taught "Without faith, it is impossible to please God."

I find the new name immediately nullifies any sense that God may be approached by intellectual assent, that there is an unbreachable barrier between the created ability of humankind to approach God and Him as the object of worship, whatever name He is known by.

Now, I simply realise that "God does not require worship without faith." The old name I would reference as "God", or "the Most High".

I start defining God as would Anselm,

“God is a being than which none greater can be imagined”

Now, if God has a new name (and I will refer to this name as “the Father”) then the Father must break the closure of positive properties (perfections). It is impossible therefore to humanly imagine God the Father. This is true because it is impossible to think of a greater God than “God” with His old name in positive properties, by the properties of an ultrafilter. Then, it becomes clear that the Father (rather than the Most High) cannot be imagined, and is completely outside of the “poset” through which perfection is obtained as by Zorn’s lemma.

Then the Father cannot receive the worship due Him, as He is the “God” of no one but those (few?) that know Him and His new name. For them, “God” is insufficient as any such God would be and so should receive no worship, only the Father so.

Yet is the “Most High” the creator also?

Clearly, man is created with the ability to worship God, but not so the Father. He cannot be imagined and then cannot be worshiped. All worship is aimed at God and the “Most High”, and the “creator” must have intended this to be as such if He be a “God” requiring worship at all.

Then the “Most High” could not have created man with the intention that they would all worship the Father, for it is impossible for them to do so. Then, there is no sense that the Father desires worship if He really is the creator. Instead, He desires all that worship to go to another, one of “the creator” or “God” or the “Most High”. (A lesser deity.) the Father, then denies Himself if He already has the new name, unless it be perfect to do so and there is equivalence.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (KJV)

Then the Father acknowledges another being (not Himself) to be “God Most High”, and He as the “Most High” is one fulfilling Anselm’s definition above. Then all the “Most High God’s” prophets are false (and certainly not of the Father) unless God is not yet in possession of the new name. Yet, then, God is not the Father and is already imperfect, a sin against all truth in perfection to worship. Then it is safely said that every prophet is again, false, as not of the Father (Yet even the Christ?).

Yet, I ask, is God the creator and the Most High?

I would worship the Father, not the “Most High”. Yet this would not be the creator’s intent, surely? Worshiping the creator as God is possibly consistent, but not so worshiping the Father as creator or God Most High. I cannot attain (derive) the “new name” of the Father to worship it, and I find I can no longer worship God, only the Father.

The difference must be found between the limit of humans to imagine the "perfect" versus the ability of omnipotent God to perfect Himself! It must be found that human faith in perfection is pleasing to both humans and God. The Father, must be found equivalently "perfect" if at all, if there be a further closure of a new name.

Now, if the Father is the creator, He must otherwise have used the “old name” only, to create (were both names not equivalently perfect). The new name is not possibly worshiped until this creation is entirely superseded with a new creation wherein the nature of Man has changed to permit worship of the Father. The “Father” as such in this world, is God to nobody but those aware of the new name, and the near permanent inability for humans to worship Him.

In this single case as regards myself, I expect better from any “God”.

Is the Father my God? Strictly, no. Is God my Father? Also, no.

I have that God cannot be worshipped in either name's sense without a breach of understanding that relies only on faith. That faith is necessary to distinguish the pleasing worship from the false, and not to justify the intellect, which would be respect of persons.

Then I state mankind is created imperfect without a "Father", but faith is always pleasing to receive with worship, not so the flatteries upon God's person merely from understanding. Then, what we would consider an imperfection is truly a great leveller and actually closer to the creator's intent.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page