The properties of God.

[jkiernan56]

… continued

Christ is the Law. The Law of God died on the cross to fulfull the Law - the Law of Love.

Mary is also the model of the Church … the Law of God … the Law of Love … … “may your will be done” …“may it be done to me according to your word” … Mary bore the Law of God in her heart before she bore Love Incarnate in her womb.

Anyone who loves Jesus will definitely love His Mother. That is just basic common sense. They are so much alike. What must their personalities be like together … something very incredible … I would love to be a fly on the wall and listen to them talk together … and laugh together … and love together as a Mother and Son …

 

[1holycatholic]

You are very blessed. The only reason I responded in this way was because someone earlier said something about how the “shadow” that has fallen over the Church. I don’t know about you, but when I watch the life of St. Teresa of Calcutta, or read the words of John Paul II … or the documents of Vatican II … I would say the Church is doing just fine …

:banghead: That someone was Detales, who proclaims his dissent from the Church in this very thread.

 

[1holycatholic]

1HolyCatholic - I do not mean any disrespect whatsoever. I will remember you in prayer that God’s love touches your life and turns it upside down. You will never be the same. You will smell the flowers in a different way. You will listen to music and hear it in a new way. You will love and be loved in a new way. You will want to live for love. Love will consume you. Love is the FIRE OF GOD’s HOLINESS.

I find this extremely offensive and uncharitable. You are in no position to judge my relationship with God.

 

[jkiernan56]

I find this extremely offensive and uncharitable. You are in no position to judge my relationship with God.

No offense intended.God is not a science lab.

He is a personable God and when you know that - you will talk about God in very personable terms - the language of love - not just dissect Him like a science project. It offends me that as a Catholic - you responded the way you did about the greatest property of characteristic of God. The same holds true of Greylorn. The creation of the physical universe is not something that can understood solely in terms of science and trying to break it down into measurable properties. Creation can only be properly understood in the language of Love. And yes, Detales definitely has it right because he understands creation in and through the context of love.

 

[1holycatholic]

No offense intended.God is not a science lab.

He is a personable God and when you know that - you will talk about God in very personable terms - the language of love - not just dissect Him like a science project. It offends me that as a Catholic - you responded the way you did about the greatest property of characteristic of God. The same holds true of Greylorn. The creation of the physical universe is not something that can understood solely in terms of science and trying to break it down into measurable properties. Creation can only be properly understood in the language of Love. And yes, Detales definitely has it right because he understands creation in and through the context of love.

I find this extremely offensive and uncharitable. You are in no position to judge my relationship with God.

 

[Detales]

'56, it seems that 1holy doesn’t distinguish between a critique of exegesis and actual relationship. this is further support of your contention that 1holy deals with exteriors and dissections. Good luck; as we know, every thought give attention to grows. That includes those which occlude the Light as well as those which foster the feeling of Unity as Love.

 

[jkiernan56]

I find this extremely offensive and uncharitable. You are in no position to judge my relationship with God.

You are right about that. But I don’t care if you were the Pope himself … everyone including me can grow in the knowledge of the Love of God … honestly, it really doesn’t get any better than that … you and I … and everyone are on a spiritual journey towards Love … towards God … and I don’t judge you or look down upon you … i only want your good … and to encourage you to grow in the knowledge of God’s love … that truly is God’s greatest characteristic … God is your Father … who is deeply in love with you … and I sincerely hope and pray that you know that in the depth of your being … that knowledge will change your life and turn it upside down …

 

[1holycatholic]

You are right about that. But I don’t care if you were the Pope himself … everyone including me can grow in the knowledge of the Love of God … honestly, it really doesn’t get any better than that … you and I … and everyone are on a spiritual journey towards Love … towards God … and I don’t judge you or look down upon you … i only want your good … and to encourage you to grow in the knowledge of God’s love … that truly is God’s greatest characteristic … God is your Father … who is deeply in love with you … and I sincerely hope and pray that you know that in the depth of your being … that knowledge will change your life and turn it upside down …

I find this extremely offensive and uncharitable. You are in no position to judge my relationship with God.

 

[1holycatholic]

'56, it seems that 1holy doesn’t distinguish between a critique of exegesis and actual relationship. this is further support of your contention that 1holy deals with exteriors and dissections. Good luck; as we know, every thought give attention to grows. That includes those which occlude the Light as well as those which foster the feeling of Unity as Love.

Is this the Sacred Scripture forum or the Philosophy forum?

 

[hansard]

Erm…getting back to the original question:
I would (very hesitantly) offer the proposition that a creator came into existence at the same time as the universe…but, before anyone plays the “heretic” or “blasphemy” cards, let me explain.

It is possible that the singularity, that is widely held to have erupted magnificently all those eons ago, is coexistent and coextensive with a creating being.
I’m no scientist beyond the odd amateur, dumbed-down book, and maybe words fail me here, but is it at least possible that God came into existence when time and matter did? (Especially time: that’s the sticking point in the minds of most laypeople. It’s impossible for most people to imagine anything existing outside our linear notion of time.)

Maybe I haven’t really answered the OP’s question.

Is anyone still interested in the thread?

 

[1holycatholic]

Erm…getting back to the original question:
I would (very hesitantly) offer the proposition that a creator came into existence at the same time as the universe…but, before anyone plays the “heretic” or “blasphemy” cards, let me explain.

It is possible that the singularity, that is widely held to have erupted magnificently all those eons ago, is coexistent and coextensive with a creating being.
I’m no scientist beyond the odd amateur, dumbed-down book, and maybe words fail me here, but is it at least possible that God came into existence when time and matter did? (Especially time: that’s the sticking point in the minds of most laypeople. It’s impossible for most people to imagine anything existing outside our linear notion of time.)

Maybe I haven’t really answered the OP’s question.

Is anyone still interested in the thread?

ex nihilo nihil fit

Being atemporal and uncreated are necessary attributes of God.

 

[Detales]

I agree with you, Hansard, insofar as that the Universe and God, though seemingly different from our limited dualist perspective, are One. This has been the Ancient Teaching from the dawn of Man, whose mythological maps to the experiential gnosis of this have been expropriated by the church and gutted of its germ plasm, one might say.

I would add that the Big Bang isn’t necessarily the single and only manifestation of the Infinite God. As we are to the deep field photos of the Hubble, so might our Universe be to the glorious Creation of the God!

We have this tendency to create our God in our own image and likeness. Why don’t we accept the Magnificence of the infinite and stop trying to stuff it into the old and tattered vessel of anthropomorphism? How delusional is that?

 

[jkiernan56]

I agree with you, Hansard, insofar as that the Universe and God, though seemingly different from our limited dualist perspective, are One. This has been the Ancient Teaching from the dawn of Man, whose mythological maps to the experiential gnosis of this have been expropriated by the church and gutted of its germ plasm, one might say.

I would add that the Big Bang isn’t necessarily the single and only manifestation of the Infinite God. As we are to the deep field photos of the Hubble, so might our Universe be to the glorious Creation of the God!

We have this tendency to create our God in our own image and likeness. Why don’t we accept the Magnificence of the infinite and stop trying to stuff it into the old and tattered vessel of anthropomorphism? How delusional is that?

Actually I would add to that - the heresy of Pantheism … the thought that God would not exist if His creation did not exist. I couldn’t disagree more strongly with that idea … all that was brought into being … is held in being by God moment by moment … contingent existence … whereas God’s existence is not caused nor derived … God would exist if His creation never did

 

[Detales]

I think that we have been through this before. I emphatically do not postualte that God needs to “create” to be God. God IS. But “Hi!” We are writing to each other, and here we be, darned if we ain’t. So whatever might be said about God without a manifestation, it seems that for whatever reason, there is a manifestation. If there wasn’t, what are mooting about here?

As I have posited before, Ideally, one’s state would be an awareness stablely balanced between being awake both in the world of manifestation and in the state of what you call Beatific visision. Few can do this. But there are those who have had a glimps. If asked, it is possible for us to verify, as our experience, the incomprihensible infinitude of the Love of God. A millisecond in that Presence trumps any argument in the heart of the one it happens to.

 

[jkiernan56]

I think that we have been through this before. I emphatically do not postualte that God needs to “create” to be God. God IS. But “Hi!” We are writing to each other, and here we be, darned if we ain’t. So whatever might be said about God without a manifestation, it seems that for whatever reason, there is a manifestation. If there wasn’t, what are mooting about here?

As I have posited before, Ideally, one’s state would be an awareness stablely balanced between being awake both in the world of manifestation and in the state of what you call Beatific visision. Few can do this. But there are those who have had a glimps. If asked, it is possible for us to verify, as our experience, the incomprihensible infinitude of the Love of God. A millisecond in that Presence trumps any argument in the heart of the one it happens to.

I have had a glimpse … that is why I speak with such conviction and force
The fire of God’s Holiness … is His Love … no if’s, and’s or buts about that … God is a jealous God

 

[grannymh]

You are right about that. But I don’t care if you were the Pope himself … everyone including me can grow in the knowledge of the Love of God … honestly, it really doesn’t get any better than that … you and I … and everyone are on a spiritual journey towards Love … towards God … and I don’t judge you or look down upon you … i only want your good … and to encourage you to grow in the knowledge of God’s love … that truly is God’s greatest characteristic … God is your Father … who is deeply in love with you … and I sincerely hope and pray that you know that in the depth of your being … that knowledge will change your life and turn it upside down …

You are right that God is love and all His attributes are part of love. Sometimes, it is hard to believe that God loves me, that He is in love with me. This is the way I describe God and love…

God loves me because I am valuable to Him personally. His day would be incomplete without my presence.

When God misses me, He searches for me, never stopping until He scoops me up in His loving arms.

God doesn’t mind if I am dirty and beat up. He kisses every wound. He washes away the dirty smudges in the same way He washed the feet of the apostles. He kisses my toes and my forehead so that I know He loves me from the bottom of my feet to the top of my head.

God understands my tears, telling me that He will always be with me. If I take the wings of the dawn, if I settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there, He will be true to His promise of loving me.

God probes my soul, my heart, my mind, my being so that He knows and understands all of me because He is in love with me.

 

[jkiernan56]

You are right that God is love and all His attributes are part of love. Sometimes, it is hard to believe that God loves me, that He is in love with me. This is the way I describe God and love…

God loves me because I am valuable to Him personally. His day would be incomplete without my presence.

When God misses me, He searches for me, never stopping until He scoops me up in His loving arms.

God doesn’t mind if I am dirty and beat up. He kisses every wound. He washes away the dirty smudges in the same way He washed the feet of the apostles. He kisses my toes and my forehead so that I know He loves me from the bottom of my feet to the top of my head.

God understands my tears, telling me that He will always be with me. If I take the wings of the dawn, if I settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there, He will be true to His promise of loving me.

God probes my soul, my heart, my mind, my being so that He knows and understands all of me because He is in love with me.

Yes Granny, as Psalm 139 says "He created our INNERMOST self " … He Knows You and in His Knowledge of You … who you are in the deepest recessess of your heart and mind … He Knows You … and what He Knows … He Loves … Yes, God is in love with you … He loves you so much … that He will not stop until you are fully sanctified … holy as He is Holy.

 

[greylorn]

Erm…getting back to the original question:
I would (very hesitantly) offer the proposition that a creator came into existence at the same time as the universe…but, before anyone plays the “heretic” or “blasphemy” cards, let me explain.

It is possible that the singularity, that is widely held to have erupted magnificently all those eons ago, is coexistent and coextensive with a creating being.
I’m no scientist beyond the odd amateur, dumbed-down book, and maybe words fail me here, but is it at least possible that God came into existence when time and matter did? (Especially time: that’s the sticking point in the minds of most laypeople. It’s impossible for most people to imagine anything existing outside our linear notion of time.)

Maybe I haven’t really answered the OP’s question.

Is anyone still interested in the thread?

I appreciate your reply. I’d pretty much lost interest in my own thread after finding not a single post that was not simply a reiteration of dogma, until yours.

I’m in general agreement with the sense of your idea that God and the universe came into existence jointly, perhaps as the consequence of the same phenomenon. However I do not believe in the Big Bang as a valid concept; it is really a horrid kludge that does not work mathematically without the addition of fudge factors, but the best that cosmologists have been able to come up with.

The traditional sense of an uncreated God implies that He had no origin. Saying that the Creator “came into existence” violates the “no origin” principle, which needs violation. It is a step removed from declaring that another Zeus-like entity created the God of our universe, but an important step, leaving the remaining Holmesian alternative that God came into existence as the consequence of some unknown natural event.

How far have you gone with this tangential thinking? I am genuinely curious.

Presumably you’ve considered that your idea implies that the Creator is capable of thought (and therefore is not omniscient) and cannot be omnipotent?

Finally, I’m interested in this thread. Thank you.

 

[1holycatholic]

I appreciate your reply. I’d pretty much lost interest in my own thread after finding not a single post that was not simply a reiteration of dogma, until yours.

Church dogma is dogma because it’s true.

I’m in general agreement with the sense of your idea that God and the universe came into existence jointly, perhaps as the consequence of the same phenomenon. However I do not believe in the Big Bang as a valid concept; it is really a horrid kludge that does not work mathematically without the addition of fudge factors, but the best that cosmologists have been able to come up with.

The traditional sense of an uncreated God implies that He had no origin. Saying that the Creator “came into existence” violates the “no origin” principle, which needs violation. It is a step removed from declaring that another Zeus-like entity created the God of our universe, but an important step, leaving the remaining Holmesian alternative that God came into existence as the consequence of some unknown natural event.

How far have you gone with this tangential thinking? I am genuinely curious.

Presumably you’ve considered that your idea implies that the Creator is capable of thought (and therefore is not omniscient) and cannot be omnipotent?

Finally, I’m interested in this thread. Thank you.

What is the “no origin” principle and why does it need violating?

 

[hansard]

The Australian physicist, Paul Davies, suggests that the universe very quickly moved towards a state of great complexity almost by necessity and, perhaps, by virtue of the fact that it seemed the right thing to do. He seems to suggest an inevitability in the move towards complex arrangements of atoms and, later, proteins, DNA etc.

My various thoughts on God have centred around these concepts:

1. If the universe is held in existence by the will of a god, by the power of its mind, then the god must be said to be everywhere in creation, simultaneously. This is a fairly standard theological viewpoint.
2. The universe could be random. If there is a god, the god could be random, too, in its nature and means of existence.
3. If the universe is eternal, there might not be any need for god to be eternal. Perhaps a god did not create the universe. There is no logical need for such a god to be coexistent with, or preexistent to, the universe.
4. A god does not necessarily have to be a loving god. It could be an experimental god, or an indifferent god. We might be fortunate that our God is of the loving, caring kind.

Hopefully, I won’t get drawn into a heavily scientific debate (which I couldn’t handle). These are just thoughts, not even in the theory stage.

I don’t think it’s heretical or blasphemous to speculate, in a purely hypothetical way, on the possibilities of creation and divinity.

Any other ideas?