Yes, God exists as the Source of the universe, but God is not flesh and blood, that is physical. As a Christian how do you define God?
It would also depend upon your definition of āthingā, apparently. God is not nothing, no thing. God is a, the, self-existent being, so of course he is a ābeingā, a Person (or a Trinity).
I think that your saying that God is neither a being or a thing, @Relates, comes from a good motivation, to honor God, and that denying his āthingnessā and ābeingnessā is somehow elevating his holiness, but Iām sorry, it is really just a nonsensical use of language.
How long have you got?
Thereare so may aspects that a single definition is probably not possible. Jesus gave a multitude of parables to describe the kingdom of Heaven. Each one illustrated an aspect, not the whole.
First and formost I donot beleive we can box God into any definition. The Trinity was an attempt to do so but it is limited to our experiences both recorded and personal. On another Forum I glibly said that God must be more than the Trinity, to include aspects that are not covered. The response was to suggest that God could be a herd of Buffallow which showed a lack of understanding of what I was trying to say.
If God exists and has both actions and means of communication that implies some sort of presence in the physical plane but it does not mean that he actually exists in it, like a shaddow or reflection that you cannot quite pin down and only perceive on a subconscious or mental level.
We use Jesus as an illustration of God in physical/human form. Jesus us the most tangible manifestation of God but we are in danger of limiting God to human values and perceptions.
I am sorry if this does not satisfy. As a preacher, I have tried to cover this in a sermon of twenty minutes and am not convinced I succeeded.
Richard
The Trinity is the Christian definition of God. God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I do not think that this definition is limited since it includes it includes the fact that God is Love and Love is unlimited.
Being is a philosophical concept. The Greek philosophers tended to see being as static, while the Jews see God as dynamic, which God is. As I said before God is Trinity, but it is not clear that the Trinity is a Person, but surely God is Personal.
I think the main point Iwas trying to make is that most people base their idea of God on idealized humanity. While it is true that humans are created in the image of God and Jesus was both God and Human, we need to base our understanding of God based on what is revealed to us through the Bible and esp. through Jesus and this is what the early Church Fathers did. As YHWH said, āI AM WHO I AM.ā
Also I would say that the Biblical definition, āGod is Loveā is a better statement than God is a thing or God is the Supreme Being. .
Yes. He is still, however, the only being possessing aseity, and he is something rather than nothing.
Not only is this clearly human vanity it is not meant as a construct of God. Was Jesus God in human form or was He God in His human form? I hope that you can see a difference.
Neither do I think that this is meant to define Godās shape, or form in anything other than Theology or Philosophy. The fact that it is very difficult to visualise the Trinity, or allegorise it in forms that people understand demonstrates what level it is on.
If a āthingā is defined as something that exists in physical form within our realm, and is physically tangible, then, apart from Jesus, God would not be a thing. If a thing is defined as having existence in any plane or dimension and doesnāt rely on corporeal or Physical features then God can still be defined as a thing.
Richard
And you think that the Bibleās view, especially in early Genesis is not?
Do you really think that God would portray Himself as a giant walking around a garden looking for His pet human? The Bible imposes human values and reasons for action upon God. When something Godly occurs it decrees what God must have done or thought for it to have happened. And it imposes biblical justice so that Job receives full restoration and more for his righteousness. (Oh that would be true)
IOW the bible is the human experiences of God rather than some sort of God written revelation. It records how our understanding has grown from a mythical story of Adam and Eve, through being the personal God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, to the tribal god of the Jews until eventaully being seen as the one true God of humankind.
Richard
Clearly, we have two different views of what a thing is. My view is that an organism is not a thing. because a thing has no feelings. Jesus is not a thing. Jesus has a shape, but the important aspect of Who He is is His Love. Jesus is God because Jesus is Love as God is Love.
That in a real sense is the message of the Bible. Humans can love, but often they do not. God is Love and the only real way they can find their true purpose in life is to turn to God in faith and love. One does not have to visualize to understand something.
This is not human vanity, but Godās goodness. Please learn the difference. If Godās Image is the Trinity and we are created in Godās Image, then we must be created as a trinity. Godās Trinity is
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Our trinity is body, mind, and spirit. This is also our clue that Reality is physical, rational, and spiritual.
Jesus the Messiah is not God in human form. He is both God and human in human form.
I am afraid that aseity is a made-up concept which has no validity.
Philosophy has failed to solve the basic problem of the One And the Many, nor has it used the clue of the Trinity to solve it. Thus it has failed its basic mission to understand the basic structure of Reality. This we are left in limbo between dualism and monism, neither of which is true.
So God is not self-existent and the only being that is. There seems to be a likelihood that you are not familiar with the word.
That is a very limited, and,may I say, unusual view/definition of things
That would not need the bible to express it. You have successfully negated the need for such a wordy and expansive publication
You seem to be mixing metaphors or concepts. There is no direct connection between human vanity and Godās goodness (that I can identify)
Is but one manifestation of the Trinity concept. And it is not even the one most people latch on to or identify with.
Forgive me but you appear to be trying to assert your theology as the only basis of conceptualising God. And I am not certain I can align myself with all of your theology or the limited view that you are insisting on.
Apart from splitting hairs, I think this needs another thread to address it properly.(and possibly it is not part of the BioLogos brief)
Richard
Many people think that they must have earned Godās love because God has blessed them. The story of Job that you seem to have missed is that his friends said that he must have committed a terrible sin, because otherwise God would not have punished him so severely. Job said this was not true. His record was good, but not perfect, and the Bible backed Job up.
Is about human concepts of Justice verses God. All the arguments against Job are rooted in Religious dogmas and human ideas of justice and fairness. The whole notion that Jobās affliction are not in some way connected to his actions is never even considered by his accusers.
The restoration of Job is pure biblical justice and goes against all that has gone before. The point is that our wealth, health and age has absolutely nothing to do with our faith or our goodness. We live in a freewill society whereby we are free to live and free to die regardless of being saint or sinner.
Notions of āearning Godās loveā fly in direct opposition to the principles of unconditional forgiveness offered by God and accepted or rejected by us.
The parable of the workers in the fields shows that it is not the time or the persistence of acceptance that matters. (works) There is one single reward. No more and no less.
Richard
Then what really matters?
What is the reward from God?
According to Paul , faith in the salvation of Christ, but that is a very specific view.
Even that is debatable.
Everlasting life?
Forgiveness?
Peace?
You could argue cases for any of the above and probably a few more.
Richard
All of these are based on a positive relationship with God the Father through Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
Unfortunately this is not a provable or unprovable question, but rather one of faith.
Does that make the question invalid?
Richard
Yo Larry. Rationally nothing exists without spacetime. No further proof of that is necessary as itās axiomatic. God only grounds being in the desire driven faith proposition of Jesus.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.