Once again, if you want to now the questions I will be answering today, please go HERE.
1) i agree with this statement to a certain extent. I think he was trying to say that we often create our own concept of God, and that if we then use that as our god, we no longer have God, but just our image of a god, and that we can't have a full concept of God. I think we can come to know what God has for us, but not know God fully, for if we did, our human minds would probably explode.
2) I think Tozer would say that about most of the population, but with all of the movement of God in the past couple of decades, God has revealed himself for those who are looking. ass for God compared to Greek and roman gods, I have to say that it once again depends on the people you are talking about. Christians don't think God a little above them, but the only God, and far superior to any other idol. As for the others, God is either the thing they want to rid/get away from, or He is lower than their gods.
3) I agree with this, for even though people claim there is no God, they still "worship" something, whether it be a baseball player, or social media. I do see this in me, for when I start putting distance between me and God, I start drawing close to other things.
4) I think this is for good reason, for in the Bible, it refers to the church as God's bride. That is the only reason I think he'd refer to the soul as feminine
Thank you, Daran, for your thoughts. For 2, T. is saying that the "God of contemporary Christianity" is little better than the gods of Greece and Rome. Do you agree with that? Also, I am happy to see how you phrased yourself in 3: "When I put a distance between me and God, I start drawing close to other things." It is in the PRIORITY, which you have given to the distance between you and God, not the "things." "Things" - when they have not been distorted or twisted by sin - can be neutral and good, but it is how we relate to them. Do we invite God into our lives and our interaction with "things"? Thank you.
ReplyDelete