For the glory of God.

[Hoghead1]

I have in mind that God derives a little more than that, oi_antz. I think of creation is God's own process of self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into conscious and self-actualization. In addition, I view God as a social-relational being who arises out of his or her relationships with others. No I without a Thou. I view God as the source of all creativity, an infinite drive and imagination seeking fulfillment. In short, if there were no universe, God would remain unconscious and merely potential. So God needs the universe in order to be fully God. However, I don't think God was ever unconscious and merely potential. I believe there hsa always been some form of universe. Before ours came along, there was an earlier one, and so on, ad infinitum.

 

[oi_antz]

I have in mind that God derives a little more than that, oi_antz. I think of creation is God's own process of self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into conscious and self-actualization. In addition, I view God as a social-relational being who arises out of his or her relationships with others. No I without a Thou. I view God as the source of all creativity, an infinite drive and imagination seeking fulfillment. In short, if there were no universe, God would remain unconscious and merely potential. So God needs the universe in order to be fully God. However, I don't think God was ever unconscious and merely potential. I believe there hsa always been some form of universe. Before ours came along, there was an earlier one, and so on, ad infinitum.

That's interesting and I will keep it in mind. Thanks for sharing that! Do you find this mostly accepted or rejected as you engage with other Christians, or half and half, or mostly not passionate to have an opinion? Have you found scriptures that indicate the writers have shared this view? I rather view that God is more than anything else can be, and He did not really require to make time happen for His own sake because He could have easily imagined it. Furthermore, I imagine it possible that He could poof time into existence after Armageddon if so desired, but for our sake we would not doubt His perfect record of history because we have seen it really happen. So time is not to prove to Him that He is perfect, but it is to prove His perfection to us.

 

[Hoghead1]

Good question, oi_ant. It all depends on the particular Christians I am with. Very conservative right-wing Christians have trouble with my ideas. That's to be expected. as I am way over on the left wing of the church. I have a doctorate in thelogy ,which I worked on in a conjoint program between a major university and a PCUSA seminary. The concepts I am sharing actually came from my dissertation. So, as I say, I am well accepted in liberal Christian circles.

You seem to be asking me where I can find some of my ideas in Scripture. in brief, my answer is that Scripture is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is build or what are the basic building blocks of reality? What are we all made out of? Spirit, the immaterial sense of the word? Matter? Both? What is God like? Is God an immaterial being? Since Scripture has no real metaphysics, the early church fathers turned to Hellenic philosophy to answer these and similar questions? The Greeks had a lot of trouble when in came to time, change, and the material order. Certain predominant schools thought that the world of time and change and mater is evil, a big illusion. Hence, the "really real," the divine was wholly immaterial and immutable. This'd, in turn, led to the classical Christian picture of god as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, wholly immutable, without even the shadow of movement, wholly unaffected by the world, standing in no need of the creature. While I challenge this position on grounds other than an immediate appeal to Scripture, Scripture does have some real implications here. A hundred or so passages of God as being changed by the world, for example, Gen. 6:6, Hosea 11:9. Others seem to imply that the universe and God are ontologically ne entity, that the universe can be identified with God, thug not completely, for example, Jer. 23:23, Hosea 11:9. The Bible attributes just about every body part to God. Moses can see his bum. The major revelation of god is the Incarnation. Now, if this event is to have any real meaning, it must be a revelation of God's MO with the world, and that suggests God is incarnate throughout the universe, that the universe is the body of God. Most of the biblical predicates of God are relativistic predicates. It's hard to be a father without children, a lover without someone to love, etc. And all that implies that God needs the universe.

 

[hedrick]

Not initially, no. Coming to love God, which is the heart of Christian living, is a process. The beginning of the process of coming into relationship with God is, for many, the realization of their eternal jeopardy. They are propelled by their fear of hell to consider the gracious and merciful remedy for their fear that God has provided in Christ. And as they do, they encounter God's love, which, in turn, and over time, fosters in them a corresponding love for Him.

Maybe for some people. Many of the agnostics that I know (though by no means all) generally live fairly similarly to Christians. Loving their neighbors, forgiving, etc. They don’t love God or do overtly religious things like going to Church because of course they don’t think God exists. But if they were to become convinced he did, and started seeing life as his gift, I don’t believe they would need the fear of hell to love and follow him.

 

[JGG]

I wondered why you are not investigating the wisdom behind the teachings because you are instead investigating the motive of the teacher.

Oi, you of all people know my story, and why I would investigate the motive of those who preach...

 

[JGG]

Maybe for some people. Many of the agnostics that I know (though by no means all) generally live fairly similarly to Christians. Loving their neighbors, forgiving, etc. They don’t love God or do overtly religious things like going to Church because of course they don’t think God exists. But if they were to become convinced he did, and started seeing life as his gift, I don’t believe they would need the fear of hell to love and follow him.

This is very much my point, but I didn't want to go there.

 

[JGG]

God is the origin of all things and the king of eternity. Nothing can be given or taken if He does not will it. But, only we can offer Him our love. That is the only thing I reason that He could possibly gain from creation, that He could not just simply create.

I would wonder, JGG whether you would not find all things that have heavenly reward are also acts of love.

Yes, but my question is not specifically about God, but about us. Would we not try to do right by God, even if we were not offered heaven? If we didn't even have the concept of it? It seems not.

 

[bling]

Shouldn't the answer be because it's true? Any other reason would seem to be misplaced.



So, we should do good not as a sense of reward, but a sense of debt?

There is no debt owed it was given as pure charity.
Nothing is required or even expected of you, but it would please God if what H did for you pleases you and you want to do something, but not out of a sense of obligation (paying back some debt) since that would actually cheapen what He did. No small part could ever be paid back.

 

[JGG]

There is no debt owed it was given as pure charity.
Nothing is required or even expected of you, but it would please God if what H did for you pleases you and you want to do something, but not out of a sense of obligation (paying back some debt) since that would actually cheapen what He did. No small part could ever be paid back.

Again, shouldn't the reason for believing in God be because God is truth? What more reason is there?

The rest is just confusing. So we're not doing right by God because we want to be rewarded, we're not doing right by God out of debt, we're doing it just because we feel we should?

Isn't that what I'm advocating?

 

[aiki]

You're describing a bait & switch.

Well, that's a rather cynical description. Your description speaks more to your state of mind, I think, than the reality of the situation.

I don't think that's true. I've recently been informed that homosexuals cannot be Christians. Ditto for people who accept evolution, have tattoos, are trinitarian, are non-trinitarian, were not virgins on their wedding night, have been divorced, or who hold view x about y.

Christianity is certainly defined by Christians.

It is precisely because of what you describe here that it is so vital to have a fixed point of reference for the Christian worldview. That fixed point of reference is Christ and the revelation of him and his truth found in the Bible. Not every claim that a Christian may make about what they think is "Christian" corresponds to the teaching of the Bible. Consequently, it is necessary to test their claims against what the Bible teaches. This, in turn, requires that one study the Bible, and apply to its interpretation proper hermeneutics. Too many believers, however, can't be bothered to become students of the Scriptures, to be careful in their understanding and application of the truth, wisdom and principles of God's Word. As a result, there is a wide variety of often false claims about what is and isn't Christianity. But this is exactly why the Bible exists: To prevent the distortion and corruption of God's truth.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

Maybe for some people. Many of the agnostics that I know (though by no means all) generally live fairly similarly to Christians. Loving their neighbors, forgiving, etc. They don’t love God or do overtly religious things like going to Church because of course they don’t think God exists. But if they were to become convinced he did, and started seeing life as his gift, I don’t believe they would need the fear of hell to love and follow him.

I was careful not to say that all people come to faith in Christ in the manner I described. But many do. Fortunately, whatever starting point a person may have, God works to bring them into a love-relationship with Himself.

Selah.

 

[JGG]

Well, that's a rather cynical description. Your description speaks more to your state of mind, I think, than the reality of the situation.

Is it an accurate description. It's not fair to say here's my explanation, if you don't accept it then it's because you're cynical. I'm not going to lie, I'm looking for flaws in our thinking here. We should all be looking for flaws in our thinking.

How is your plan of bring them into the church with fear of hell, and then get them to love God, not bait & switch? It is my contention that it is not bait & switch because most Christians never switch.

Nevertheless, this is a troublesome idea either way.

It is precisely because of what you describe here that it is so vital to have a fixed point of reference for the Christian worldview. That fixed point of reference is Christ and the revelation of him and his truth found in the Bible. Not every claim that a Christian may make about what they think is "Christian" corresponds to the teaching of the Bible. Consequently, it is necessary to test their claims against what the Bible teaches. This, in turn, requires that one study the Bible, and apply to its interpretation proper hermeneutics. Too many believers, however, can't be bothered to become students of the Scriptures, to be careful in their understanding and application of the truth, wisdom and principles of God's Word. As a result, there is a wide variety of often false claims about what is and isn't Christianity. But this is exactly why the Bible exists: To prevent the distortion and corruption of God's truth.

So, if I read scripture, something specific that Jesus said, and become convinced that the Bible is telling me something, and you disagree with it, should I listen to you or Jesus?

 

[bling]

You raised a good point, Bling. Does God really get anything out of creation? The traditional answer is no. God does not need the world and God derives nothing from it. God is wholly immutable, a statically complete perfection to whom nothing can be added. However, I beg to disagree. If God could be just as happy, whole, and complete without the world as with it, then why did God bother creating it? How could it ever have any real meaning in God's life? Of course, one could argue that God has to be altruistic. However, I do not see egotism and altruist as enemies. I believe they both go together. I view reality as relational, nothing exists in isolation. To e alive is to be dependent on others. Because are all interconnected. You cannot be happy unless your bother is happy. God cannot be happy unless we are happy. So thinking for yourself is also thinking for someone else. Because we are continually in a sate of flux, a new person every moment, thinking about your future is essentially thinking about that other self or person you will become and therefore altruistic and well egotistical. Furthermore, who wants to believe in a God totally indifferent to creation? What sense does it mean to serve God if God needs absolutely nothing from us? We all seek a meaningful life and that means one in which we have a real impact on the other. A soloist may be alone on the stage, but he or she still needs the company of the audience, still needs that deep feeling of satisfaction that comes from when you have deeply moved others. The same goes for God. We should all want to serve God as we all want our lives to be meaningful in his or her eyes, make a major impact on a significant other.

Your question is this which I did explain:

“If God could be just as happy, whole, and complete without the world as with it, then why did God bother creating it?”

We are to be compelled by Love to do all we do, since God and Christ are compelled by Love to do all they do. Love being unselfish and God being totally unselfish.

God is not making the universe for His own sake, but for the sake of others.

God is compelled to make humans, since God can make humans.

Humans will be a huge burden and sacrifice for God, but for the sake of those that possibly will accept His Love, God makes humans. God does not need humans, since He has Christ and the Spirit to fellowship.


You asked: Furthermore, who wants to believe in a God totally indifferent to creation? What sense does it mean to serve God if God needs absolutely nothing from us?

How is this God “indifferent” toward His creation, He is doing everything for their sake?

The prodigal son was a huge burden and waste to his father and you might say the father would be better off without him, but that is not this father. Even if the prodigal son does not return, the father did His part perfectly doing what he would do and is no less of a glorious father.

It is our privilege and honor to allow the Spirit to work through us serving others. We can do nothing on our own and all the glory goes to the Father. God might do better without us in some sense (like God worked with Adam and Eve), but we want to share in the experience and witness the Love.

 

[Hoghead1]

Can't say as I agree with you, aiki. I view God as a loving God seeking always to promote beauty. When you love someone, you do not coerce them by threats or bribes. "Love me or I'll eternally damn you" is not a true statement of love. Yet many Christians hold with that kind of logic. That's because traditional Christianity saw God as the Ruthless Moralist, Unmoved Mover, and Ruling Caesar, all wrapped up in one. If I had to pick a metaphor for how I see God, I would say God is the Cosmic Artist, luring the universe to higher forms of beauty. I do believe in an afterlife. However, I see no need for Hell. There has been enough pain and suffering already. I realize that the OT does present God as vengeful, unloving, and very sadistic. However, I do not believe the OT is an accurate revelation of God.

 

[oi_antz]

Oi, you of all people know my story, and why I would investigate the motive of those who preach...

Why do you think it is better to investigate the motive of the preacher while ignoring the wisdom of the message? Are you expecting the message to be discredited if the messenger is flawed?

 

[Hospes]

JGG, have you read C. S. Lewis' The Weight of Glory? Given your questions, I think you may find it useful.

 

[JGG]

Why do you think it is better to investigate the motive of the preacher while ignoring the wisdom of the message? Are you expecting the message to be discredited if the messenger is flawed?

I'm expecting the message to be wrong if the messenger delivers his own message instead.

 

[oi_antz]

I'm expecting the message to be wrong if the messenger delivers his own message instead.

I think this is the wrong thing to do, FWIW.

 

[JGG]

I think this is the wrong thing to do, FWIW.

Do you think I should trust that every messenger is delivering the correct message?

 

[oi_antz]

It seems not.

What is the basis for this conclusion? (I could have missed that it was already mentioned - then forgive and be patient). Thank you!