Nicely reasoned. But I'm not sure I can build doctrine on the intriguing notion that God can only be love if he has "an object of affection, a return of affection, and a witness to that reciprocal affection." That seems to me a very humanly built conception. Our notion of God's love is
of necessity short of facts and comprehension.
I got it from the Bible. There is a thread here in BAM on the definition of love where I have reasoned
from the scriptures to define love as scripture defines it and NOT just be our limited and fleshly experience. Note most others simply quoted verses but did not define the term. Citing attributes is not definition.
The love
the Bible asserts is in fact a love of
action, not merely mere emotion. The love of
the Bible always has an object of affection. Love that is one direction and never received is a fruitless love. God is not a fruitless God. NOTHING about God is fruitless. The love
of the Bible bears fruit. Love that meets only one person's own need is a selfish love and that is not the love
of the Bible. The love of the Bible is sacrificial, other-serving, NOT selfish or haughty. Just think for a moment about the aspect of
patience assert in 1 Corinthians 13:4. Patience has to do with the passing of time. Patience has to do with the passing of time. What,
exactly, would that look like for an infinity Being existing
outside of time and space? Is it recognized that patience/impatience would be irrelevant to such a God?
He has all eternity to love! AND He
knows it. There's nothing "humanly built" in my post.
Hmmm....
God is the Uncaused Cause. We have no disagreement there. God
being the Uncaused Cause from which all other causes are caused does not in any way preclude what I posted. I stated time, "
...is a consequence of the Creator creating the 'first cause' from which all other causes originate," and I said that in the context of evidencing God's
external existence. I stand by that statement. It comes directly from the first verse of the Bible.
Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
At no time did I even remotely insinuate God is not the Uncaused Cause. Genesis 1:1 actually
states the word "
created"! God, the God who is the Uncaused Cause,
created the first cause from which all other causes originate. Had the Uncaused Cause not created the heavens and the earth we would not be here discussing the matter. Every single cause and effect playing out in this thread (and every other thread in every other internet forum in cyberspace) is an effect of Genesis 1:1 and God is not Genesis 1:1.
God is not Genesis 1:1.
God caused Genesis 1:1.
God caused Genesis 1:1 which was an act (or series of acts) of creating and from that causal act of creating all other cause and effects occurred. The point of this is that God is NOT bound or limited in any way to time or space. The reason why this is important is because universalists and modalists often argue certain attributes of God exist
solely because of His relationship with His creation, and that is just wrong when it comes to any
ontological condition.
Speak for yourself.
I do not find what I have learned from scripture about God is contrary to my way of thinking. The very premise of revelation is that can be understood! The fact of our Bible is that God revealed
Himself and He did so for the very purpose of our understanding. Remember, while the oral tradition likely existed prior to Moses, the Bible was not written until Moses penned it.
That means God's record of God's revealing Himself up to that point was a revelation to
already sinful humanity, a humanity whose cognitive faculties were already compromised.
God may be extra-rational, but God is not irrational.
Not only has God bestowed upon us faculties of reason sufficient for understanding His revelation of Himself, but
He invites us to come reason WITH Him!!! That God is what He is is not contrary to "our" way of thinking. It might be contrary to
your way of thinking, but I am not the person of
Proverbs 12:26 or
Isaiah 55:8. I have the Spirit of God dwelling within me and thereby possess
the mind of Christ, and on the occasion when I lack wisdom (or knowledge and understanding or wisdom) I need only
ask God who gives without reproach.
It is the belief "
That God is what he is, in and of himself, is contrary to our way of thinking" that is "
a very humanly built conception".
Which is exactly what I said. Go back and re-read my post. We are bound by time. God is not bound by time. This is of significant importance when it comes to God's ontologically being love and just, and not merely a god who acts lovingly and justly. I'm not omni-attributed but I can act loving and/or just. There's nothing particularly divine about my doing so. I cannot, however
be ontologically love and just on this side of the resurrection. I am a creature, not the Creator. It is not good for me to be alone. God is
never alone.
I never said otherwise, and nothing I posted should be construed otherwise.
I never said otherwise....
Got scripture for that personal belief or is that "
a humanly built concept"?
God is not that which He creates. God is
eternal, without beginning or end. Time is simply a measure of cause and effect, and as we've already agreed, God
is the Uncaused Cause from which all other causes are caused. Because time is a construct of creation, a measure of cause and effect
it has a beginning! It is not
eternal. According to scripture the heavens and the earth will pass away (become neglected, vain, and rendered void) so time is not unending. We will be immortal but heaven and earth will become void. Real head-scratcher but off-topic. Time cannot be indicative of an eternal Person since time is finite
by the design of that eternal Person.
Never said it did. Do not know why that was thought to have any bearing on anything I posted and will respectfully suggest the problem is not between you and my post but
within you. Probably not anything to be concerned about though because it looks like the faculties to reason through your own reasoning, find the flaws and better believe God's word in all that it says on these matters is possessed. The "balk," not my post's contents, evidence the problem to be solved.
My point was fairly simple, and it seems to be understood at least in part: God does not exist solely within His own creation and that external pre-existence is important to understand when considering God's attributes because God was a God existing inherently in relationship prior to His creating the relationships found in creation. No balking necessary.
Perhaps the following will help: There's a very basic logical equation called "if.... then.... else..." It is a veru useful premise that does not require a person to be regenerate to understand and apply. For example,
If a God actually factually exists... then we are not in charge.... else we have reason not to believe no God exists.
This logic can be used to preclude a huge pile of gods asserted throughout human history. For example, we
necessarily understand ALL polytheisms preclude the premise of omnipotence because
if two or more gods exist at the same time
then neither can be more powerful than the other
else that would mean the less-powerful one is not really a god; the more powerful one is a god and the less-powerful one is a lesser being, not a god. The lesser-powerful god is definitely NOT a God. Polytheism is self-contradictory and thereby self-refuting. No one need believe in such gods in light of a more rational alternative. Similarly,
If a god lives or exists
solely within the limitations of time and space
then we KNOW that god is not a God because s/he/it is neither omnipotent nor omnipresent. S/he/it is limited by time and space. No one needs to be a Christian to understand this. No one needs to be a rocket surgeon, either. Human faculties of reason - even in the sinful state - are sufficient for this purpose. This will NOT get a person to knowing God salvifically but that which may be known about God is plain because God has made it plain, even the sin-adulterated sinner
for since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse (Rom. 1:18-19).
And since everyone here in BAM lays claim to the name of Christ and is privileged to all the knowledge, wisdom, understanding and power that comes with knowing and being knowing we can reason with God to understand God as He has revealed Himself in His word. Whether we do so or not remains to be seen, and often times requires us to rely on each other to have our thoughts tested.
And...
***Just for the record: As far as we currently understand time and space are simply variations in the same condition, much like matter and energy. Correctly understood, time and space are merely functions of gravity, or what we nowadays call a "
singularity." God is not the singularity. God made the singularity. This singularity possessed ten, maybe eleven dimensions, of which we humans observe and experience only four. On a quantum level it is possible to be in two places at once but we don't live on the quantum level. This means that even
if a god did live solely within the singularity and did so with quantum faculties, that god might be able to have an attribute of omnipresence and from that condition then also have omniscience. However, that god would not be omnipotent. S/he/it would not be omnipotent because s/he/it would still be bound by the singularity; the singularity would be more power, more potent, than the god existing within it.
and you'll find me practicing that method in almost any thread to which I post. I don't have a lot of disagreement with what you've posted and if you keep the posts about the posts,