Need help understanding necessary willing

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
davidv said:
Since I know for a fact that God is not subject of time, this an invalid interpretation.
I cannot accept this bias interpretation.
Click to expand...
I mean, I am sympathetic to the view that the stories in the bible are designed to have an overarching spiritual message, while all the individual fiddly little details in the stories are not as important. But such an admission is not a carte blanche to simply ignore the details and invent whatever overarching story you want. For example, the whole story of Noah is predicated on:
And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, It repented him that he had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart, He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Click to expand...
Now we can “ignore the details” and say that God didn’t really change his mind, and that the flood represents a punishment instead of extermination, but these things are in my mind core parts of the story. In my mind the fiddly details are things like the measurements of the ark and animals and the exact counts of the days.

I am always extremely cautious and skeptical when a religious person tells me that the “real” interpretation of their religious text is the exact opposite of the literal meaning. This is in contrast to saying that the literal meaning is insignificant (i.e. not useful at all, like the measurements of the ark) or had certain cultural connotations that add nuance to the literal meaning.
 
davidv said:
Since I know for a fact that God is not subject of time, this an invalid interpretation.
Click to expand...
Why God cannot be subject to time? Time is not necessary a part of creation.
davidv said:
I cannot accept this bias interpretation.
Click to expand...
And what is your interpretation?
davidv said:
No I don’t agree with you.
Click to expand...
Well, that is strange! That was you who in post #13 mentioned that God is pure act hence He has no choice.
 
In eternity. before the big bang the singularity didnt have time. And what of black holes?
 
thinkandmull said:
In eternity. before the big bang the singularity didnt have time. And what of black holes?
Click to expand...
There is no point before Big Bang.

We don’t have any physical theory which time emerges from so to me time is intrinsic underlying of reality when changes are involved.
 
STT said:
The starting point of the universe is at Big Bang. There is no point before Big Bang since there was no event before this point.
Click to expand...
In the temporal, although not causal sense, there is no “before” the first moment of creation, of things that moved forward in change, of time. It is timeless = eternity. That Ground of all that is, has been and will be, is the Triune Godhead, encompassing every place and every moment.
 
STT said:
Why God cannot be subject to time?
Click to expand...
He is pure spirit who is not changing.
Time is not necessary a part of creation.
Click to expand...
It is if creation is changing. Time is a measure of change.
And what is your interpretation?
Click to expand...
My interpretation is not relevant to the topic.
Well, that is strange! That was you who in post #13 mentioned that God is pure act hence He has no choice.
Click to expand...
And I don’t think this means what you think it does.
 
Aloysium said:
In the temporal, although not causal sense, there is no “before” the first moment of creation, of things that moved forward in change, of time. It is timeless = eternity. That Ground of all that is, has been and will be, is the Triune Godhead, encompassing every place and every moment.
Click to expand...
So you believe that there was a point before the beginning?
 
STT said:
What purity has to do with change? Can’t God be pure and change?

I think it does. Would you mind?

What else could it mean?
Click to expand...
God is the uncaused cause. He is immutable. See Thomas Aquinas’ Summa for a more complete explanation. It also seems that this has gotten off topic.
 
STT, I would be glad to try to explain how I see this. Creation is 0 for God, since He is all actuality, so creating doesn’t affect Him any more than zero affects eternity
 
thinkandmull said:
Well I think Aristotle’s God would be love itself as well, without a Trinity. But what I am considering is how virtue being fought for is better than virtue when it has become a habit. God doesn’t have to fight for virtue like we do. That is where I have confusion
Click to expand...
His own right arm saved Him.
 
thinkandmull said:
STT, I would be glad to try to explain how I see this. Creation is 0 for God, since He is all actuality, so creating doesn’t affect Him any more than zero affects eternity
Click to expand...
We were talking about the fact that God becomes subject of time when He decide and act. I completely understand what you say.
 
STT said:
We were talking about the fact that God becomes subject of time when He decide and act. I completely understand what you say.
Click to expand...
There can be before and after ontologically but not temporally. If not, why not

Thanks Vic. I understand it know. Its like a dog trying to understand human free will. God is another type of being
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top