1
1holycatholic
Guest
In your scenario, God is omniscient and temporal. How do you reconcile the two?1Holycatholic~~~What part of “ALL” do you not understand?
- Status
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
water is wet, has a specific gravity, a specific diffraction index, and so on, yet it is still water. in the same way. one can talk about “parts” of G-d inferred by the maximal state of being without altering the unity of G-d. its only labels we apply to those inferences for ease of conversation, “the state of maximal being” covers all those qualities of the whole.
D
Detales
Guest
1holy~~"In your scenario, God is omniscient and temporal. How do you reconcile the two? " no reconciliation needed. God has no attributes other than I AM ** Duration is a perception of Being associated with mortal mind. Is a mirage real, or does it only seem to have substance due to your perspective? Or again, the gold of a ring and a bit of gold dust are substantially the same. The form does not make it aluminum or salt. It is gold, no matter how you shape it. But these matters are why scholarship and scripture are essentially useless as they deal with descriptions in the realm of relative and exterior “abouts.” The knowledge and understanding of God as BEing are on the axis of I AM. It is why it has been said for ages: “Know Thyself.” It is not a tirvial admonishion. If you don’t know the “knower” the contents of the knowere is delusional. but the Nature of the “knower” can be discovered by inquiry. Then the Scriptures and scholarship are imbued with Soul; otherwise those are empty. As someone said who never knew of a Bible “Those who lack discrimination [of Self] may quote the letter of the Scripture, but they are really denying its inner Truth.” And that is the case on here with all the quoters and phrasers and dogmatists and tenenters who have only paper and ink as reference for their emotive intellections about. They are concerned with proofs, not meaning. What was it Iesus said about them?
1
1holycatholic
Guest
It is not possible for God to have no attributes other than existence. Can you explain how God can have the mutually incompatible attributes of temporality and omniscience ?
J
jkiernan56
Guest
To discuss the properties of God as if they were ‘parts’ … for the purpose of language and communication about God … it must always be made clear what the bigger picture is … that language and words can never express ultimate reality … the reality of God as God is in Himself … “I AM WHO AM”. But if our limitations are clearly understood and acknowledged from the outset, then yes … within that ‘context’ we can discuss the properties of God … none of which detract from any other … since they are all different angles of the same ONE REALITY … it is the Omnipotence of God that answers the question about what property is necessary for God to create the physical universe …
Ooops … I just realized something I said that was untrue … about how words are inadequate to express the ultimate reality of God … there is one word that does express ALL that God is … “The Word” who became flesh … Christ … He is the one WORD of God that fully communicates God perfectly … how? why? … this WORD is God visible now in a human person … God is you might say … on display
“Late have I loved Thee, Oh Beauty, ever ancient and ever new.” St. Augustine
J
jkiernan56
Guest
Thank you for that clearity of distinction and at the same time so simple. you have a gift … i wish i could say things so succinctly
P
passus
Guest
Wow, thanks
J
jkiernan56
Guest
Actually there is something even better than Sacred Scripture … it is the Incarnation of Christ … who being fully God is now at the same time fully human. If you are referring to Sacred Scripture as you would to the Eucharist … Christ incarnate … flesh and blood … then my apologies
T
tjm190
Guest
Existing in a minimum of 4 dimensions is the only original thing I can think of. It makes the whole “being able to see all things” part of God alot easier to understand too.
J
jkiernan56
Guest
The same way that God has infinite activity … and yet never changes … I can’t quite connect those 2 dots either … but i know in my gut it is true
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
your right.To discuss the properties of God as if they were ‘parts’ … for the purpose of language and communication about God … it must always be made clear what the bigger picture is … that language and words can never express ultimate reality … the reality of God as God is in Himself … “I AM WHO AM”. But if our limitations are clearly understood and acknowledged from the outset, then yes … within that ‘context’ we can discuss the properties of God … none of which detract from any other … since they are all different angles of the same ONE REALITY … it is the Omnipotence of God that answers the question about what property is necessary for God to create the physical universe …
Ooops … I just realized something I said that was untrue … about how words are inadequate to express the ultimate reality of God … there is one word that does express ALL that God is … “The Word” who became flesh … Christ … He is the one WORD of God that fully communicates God perfectly … how? why? … this WORD is God visible now in a human person … God is you might say … on display
“Late have I loved Thee, Oh Beauty, ever ancient and ever new.” St. Augustine
J
jkiernan56
Guest
Also … I can’t quite get my head around trying to connect how the 2nd Person of the Trinity can join Himself to the soul and body of a human being …
divine and human joined together … yet still distinct … one not diminishing or overshadowing the other
D
Detales
Guest
!holy~~"*It is not possible for God to have no attributes other than existence. Can you explain how God can have the mutually incompatible attributes of temporality and omniscience ? *
I didn’t say existence, I said Being, BEing IS, Existence is dependent on and derivative of BEing. God does not “exist” in the sense of the derivation of that word. The attempts of anthropomorphization to objectify God kill the intent of the Scriptures. “Does God exist?” is a semantic oxymoron. That is a question that, depending on perspective, can be answered “yes,” “no,” “yes and no,” “both and neither,” and all of these answers are false. There is not a human answer to the question of God from the perspective of ordianary awareness.
That is why all Scritptures are pointers only, and in the face of obstiancy have been destroyed in front of a student who can’t get that God in not in a book. The Scriptures are properly not even about God. They are attempts to use myth in order to encourage a genuine seeker to look within for an experiential answer. (In this regard, I had the great good fortune to encounter someone one here who understood the difference between Gnosis and Gnosticism. They are not the same, similarly to self and Self having little to do with one another save as a shadow related to a candle or beacon.)
If you pursued the recommended course of questioning, you would realize that your question about temporal and omniscient is irrelevant. Neither “temporal” not “omniscient” can properoy be appl;ied to God. God IS not in parts, or in qualifiable attributes. And why do you pick omniscience? Why not omnipresence, etc? Just stick with the Omni- and forget the suffix. You will save yourself a lot of needless angst.
I didn’t say existence, I said Being, BEing IS, Existence is dependent on and derivative of BEing. God does not “exist” in the sense of the derivation of that word. The attempts of anthropomorphization to objectify God kill the intent of the Scriptures. “Does God exist?” is a semantic oxymoron. That is a question that, depending on perspective, can be answered “yes,” “no,” “yes and no,” “both and neither,” and all of these answers are false. There is not a human answer to the question of God from the perspective of ordianary awareness.
That is why all Scritptures are pointers only, and in the face of obstiancy have been destroyed in front of a student who can’t get that God in not in a book. The Scriptures are properly not even about God. They are attempts to use myth in order to encourage a genuine seeker to look within for an experiential answer. (In this regard, I had the great good fortune to encounter someone one here who understood the difference between Gnosis and Gnosticism. They are not the same, similarly to self and Self having little to do with one another save as a shadow related to a candle or beacon.)
If you pursued the recommended course of questioning, you would realize that your question about temporal and omniscient is irrelevant. Neither “temporal” not “omniscient” can properoy be appl;ied to God. God IS not in parts, or in qualifiable attributes. And why do you pick omniscience? Why not omnipresence, etc? Just stick with the Omni- and forget the suffix. You will save yourself a lot of needless angst.
T
tonyrey
Guest
We know that in this life a person is constantly active in some way or other, that his/her body is constantly changing, that he/she changes his/her mind many times and yet remains the same person. In that sense we are immutable!
J
jkiernan56
Guest
One thing that jumped out at me were your words “Existence is dependent on and derivative of BEing.” I have to respond to this … because I have a very strong gut reaction to this misconception.
God’s existence IS NOT dependent or derived of BEING.
God’s EXISTENCE is His BEING.
God’s existence and being are the one and same reality. One is not 'dependent" on another - they are of the same essence. God’s being and existence is God. God is pure being. God is pure existence. You are looking at the same essence from different angles - but nevertheless … are looking at the exact same reality … God’s reality … His Essence.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I think the concept of “joining” is misleading. If we begin with the view that “in God we live, move and have our being”, i.e. that God created everything and sustains everything in existence, He is already present in everything that exists. There is no obvious reason why He cannot or should not choose to be present in a more supernatural way in the person of Jesus - and in the bread and wine consecrated by a priest.
J
jkiernan56
Guest
Oh, I totally agree with you - that for God "all things are possible … that are possible " … and if you realize that God needs nothing … and has now joined Himself to a human nature in the Person of Jesus … and is fully present - body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist … this realization would be utterly devastating and consuming.
I acknowledge the reality you have clearly pointed out to me - and yet at the same time … it does baffle me … its just I know in my finiteness I will never fully comprehend … but I don’t have to … what is most important is love that flows and stems from humility - which is all grace as well
J
jkiernan56
Guest
You raise a very interesting point. Are we really the same person moment by moment as a consequence of our thoughts and actions? Is the process of sanctification a change of the essence of a person? Is there a state or quality of being that no longer can change … because it is all that it should be? Sanctity … is that a change in our nature or in our Person? Is a Person the same reality as their human nature? How are they different? Is there any difference between Person and Nature. I am just asking these questions to myself … because honestly I don’t know … but i want to …
In my gut, the process of sanctification is that which does fundamentally change us as a Person … we are not staying “the same” as you say … at least that is my conviction for now … one day by the grace of God we will each become “perfect” as God is perfect … ie … in our essence … we will no longer change … we cannot grow in “more” sanctity …
but then that raises other questions for me … because God is infinite … and each of us in our “finiteness” will never fully comprehend or grasp the “mind of God” or His essence … we will never exhaust the infinite riches of God … and thus that tells me that we will forever be growing in the knowledge of God … knowledge that God intimately and infinitely fully comprehends and grasps in His one act of BEING. This knowledge of God is the WORD of God … who is now a Person … joined to a human soul … Infinity and Finiteness joined at the hip … God on display
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Summa Theo. Q4 A1
Objection 3. Further, as shown above (Question 3, Article 4), God’s essence is existence. But existence seems most imperfect, since it is most universal and receptive of all modification. Therefore God is imperfect.
Reply to Objection 3. Existence is the most perfect of all things, for it is compared to all things as that by which they are made actual; for nothing has actuality except so far as it exists. Hence existence is that which actuates all things, even their forms. Therefore it is not compared to other things as the receiver is to the received; but rather as the received to the receiver. When therefore I speak of the existence of man, or horse, or anything else, existence is considered a formal principle, and as something received; and not as that which exists.
This is the kiss of death for the dualist.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Beautifully expressed…
- Status