God Changes?

[marks]

You can't do that in orthodoxy.

I think of this more like "peer review" on my thoughts.

Much love!

 

[marks]

what, you don't think God loves Himself?

Is this what the Bible shows as virturous love? To love one's self?

 

[marks]

I see it a bit differently. I'm not sure that God always has to have someone outside himself to love in order to be Love. His attributes are what they are regardless. And since the Son, and Holy Spirit are all one, there was no one outside himself to love at one time ( if time even has any meaning to God)
The incarnation was certainly a change for God, don't you think? The Trinity was in some sense separated so that Jesus could become human. So, I will not say God doesn't change in some way, only that his character doesn't change.

I'm trying to be careful with how I speak of time in relation to God. It's not that God has existed in the past, that reference only has meaning within this continuum, and God is not a part of His own creation. It's like saying I'm living in the previous chapters of the book I wrote.

Are we saying that God is love, but until a certain time came, had never loved another?

I don't see that the incarnation changed God's attributes, though Christ did empty Himself. But it says the fulness of God was in Christ, so no division I think. "You may leave me alone, but I am not alone, the Father is with me."

Much love!

 

[marks]

exist
1.
have objective reality or being.

And this is to say . . . what?

 

[bbyrd009]

And this is to say . . . what?

um, i've forgotten now, sorry...oh ya, neither one of Them "exists" according to our own definitions, and i guess even the Bible's, in that I AM is the only "proof" given, along with the "idols" passages, or iow "all the gods that 'exist' have fallen," or i guess we even have the "wind" passages, but we know what makes the wind now whereas they did not, but i saw another good arg for this the other day, basically suggests that we try to reduce Yah to mere "existence" without realizing the limitations, see if i can find it.

But the gist i guess is that something does not necessarily need to "exist" in order to be real--weird as that sounds at first--but also that "existence" would be a limitation for Spirit, which i guess is why Scripture goes on about the "seen" and the "unseen" too maybe

 

[marks]

um, i've forgotten now, sorry...oh ya, neither one of Them "exists" according to our own definitions, and i guess even the Bible's, in that I AM is the only "proof" given, along with the "idols" passages, or iow "all the gods that 'exist' have fallen," or i guess we even have the "wind" passages, but we know what makes the wind now whereas they did not, but i saw another good arg for this the other day, basically suggests that we try to reduce Yah to mere "existence" without realizing the limitations, see if i can find it.

But the gist i guess is that something does not necessarily need to "exist" in order to be real--weird as that sounds at first--but also that "existence" would be a limitation for Spirit, which i guess is why Scripture goes on about the "seen" and the "unseen" too maybe

OK, that's right, you use "exist" for "can be proven to be real". Proof exists? ;)

I use "exist" as a term of being-ness. For me, to say that God exists doesn't limit Him in any way, simply acknowledges His reality.

 

[bbyrd009]

OK, that's right, you use "exist" for "can be proven to be real". Proof exists? ;)

I use "exist" as a term of being-ness. For me, to say that God exists doesn't limit Him in any way, simply acknowledges His reality.

personally i have no probs with that, only now you basically have to provide a better term for "stuff we have objective evidence for," since that used to be "exists" and still is for most...see, its just better to mention private interpretations here maybe

 

[DNB]

(edit to add . . . this is regarding those who may claim that Jesus does not eternally co-exist with the Father, for instance, that Jesus is a created being. If we were to say that the Father created the Son, we would then have to go on to say that . . . )

The God, the Father, that Creates the Son changes from a God who does not love, and becomes one that does.

Malachi prophesies, I YHWH change not. Therefore this cannot be true.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

God is love, and God loves the Son. If God were alone before the creation of the Son, there was no one to love. Not Himself, that's a self-indulgent love. God is love, and has always loved.

There was not a time when God decided that He wanted to start loving, and so created an object of that love.

Let's say that's exactly what God did, created an object of His love so that He could love. Do you see it? God then reveals He has a need that must be fulfilled by His creation. He wanted to love, but had none to love, so He made someone to love.

But "I YHWH change not". God has always loved, and shares the love He has always had with us.

Much love!

Why are you frivolous tritheist adherents, so credulous with these types of implausible rationales and philosophies? Love is an intrinsic and necessary attribute of a deity, ...deity being tantamount to perfect. The ability to love, is not contingent on there needing to be an object to love. Objects of one's affections come and go, and with varying degrees. Taking a new-born baby an leaving it in an isolated environment, does not mean that the child cannot love simply because there are no persons to love within his spectrum. His potential to love is dormant, but as potent as any others.

Therefore, exactly how many entities or persons does it require before God is able to love? If we're speaking in trinitarian terms, that number is an absolute and uncompromising three. Otherwise, there would be redundancy within the Godhead, if only two were required to either effectuate, or manifest God's love. For, the third lover would just be likened to an unnecessary appendage (which it is regardless, in regard to all the omni attributes). Thus, with such nonsensical and offensive rationale, you by necessity, both quantify the infinite God claiming that the Father alone is insufficient to be God, and equally, entirely compromise His aseity.

There is no other doctrine in all of Christendom that has made rather intelligent men, completely lose their marbles whenever they attempt to justify such an implausible concept as, either a two-in-one god, or a three-in-one god.

 

[marks]

Taking a new-born baby an leaving it in an isolated environment, does not mean that the child cannot love simply because there are no persons to love within his spectrum. His potential to love is dormant, but as potent as any others.

Doing that can actually destroy their ability to love. This is how you make a sociopath.

 

[DNB]

Doing that can actually destroy their ability to love. This is how you make a sociopath.

That's circumstantial. The fact that he's human, means that the innate ability to love is within him from birth. He does not need another human, in order to substantiate whether or not this being has the possibility to love. Even more so in regard to God. God is love because He is perfect, and thus, perfection has no darkness nor blemish. Thus, He is love, not because of either the biunity, or triunity of His personhood, but because of the transcendence and purity of His essence and character.

 

[marks]

That's circumstantial. The fact that he's human, means that the innate ability to love is within him from birth. He does not need another human, in order to substantiate whether or not this being has the possibility to love. Even more so in regard to God. God is love because He is perfect, and thus, perfect has no darkness nor blemish. Thus, He is love, not because of either the biunity, or triunity of His personhood, but because of the transcendence and purity of His essence and character.

People are made how they are made, and having the capability to love is built into them. Into us. Though it can for all intents and purposes be destroyed as mentioned.

People are made according to a certain way, of course, God is not made. He is Who He is.

The Bible defines love as giving one's self for another. Would you agree with this?

Much love!

 

[DNB]

People are made how they are made, and having the capability to love is built into them. Into us. Though it can for all intents and purposes be destroyed as mentioned.

People are made according to a certain way, of course, God is not made. He is Who He is.

The Bible defines love as giving one's self for another. Would you agree with this?

Much love!

As you said, people are made as they are made. Meaning their ontology and constitution are predefined, and all attributes and natures, so-to-speak, are set in place. It is the circumstances, after this fact, that determines one's character, but not his abilities. His abilities and potential are pre-established by his Creator, who created him exactly in His image. Which, according to you, is triune, of which we are categorically not. Your theory is undermined on so many levels.

No, the Bible does not define love based on our disposition towards each other, it rather, defines each individual character based on behaviour, but again, not our ontology. In other words, we are discredited and punished if we do not treat each other with love, because God unequivocally says that we can, irrespective of the situation that we are in. As in, alone or with others. Love is not contingent upon one's environment, but upon our constitution - every man has heart within him. Other creatures do not have this capability, not because of their environments, but because God did not endow them with such a potential. That is the difference.

God is love. And, if the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Spirit is God, and all collectively are God, then love is love in either, one of them, or all of them, with or without the others. You see?
....yes, utter flippin' insanity round and round.

 

[complete]

'For I am the LORD,
I change not; ...'
(Malachi 3:6a)

Hello @marks,

I am reminded of a verse from a hymn:-

'For the love of God is broader
Than the measure of our mind
And the heart of the Eternal
Is most wonderfully kind.'

Praise God!

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[complete]

'In this was manifested the love of God toward us,
.. because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world,
.... that we might live through Him.
Herein is love,
.. not that we loved God,
.... but that He loved us,
...... and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Beloved, if God so loved us,
we ought also to love one another.'
(1 John 4:9-11)

Praise His Holy Name!

 

[complete]

'But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
.. Not by works of righteousness which we have done,
.... but according to His mercy He saved us,
...... by the washing of regeneration,
........ and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
.......... Which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
That being justified by His grace,
.. we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.'
(Titus 3:4-7)

Praise God!

 

[complete]

 

[DPMartin]

Is this what the Bible shows as virturous love? To love one's self?

why don't you read it and find out.


if you're implying that God is humble or self loathing, your dumber then I think you are. He knows He's Good, with or without your admiration.


God knows He's Good He knows He's good for His creation and all the things therein. He knows His Presence is Good, where ever He chooses to be present. He knows that when He declares something as good, then its good and not until then. He is the Judge of what is Good. and its stupid not to love what is truly good, isn't it?

not to mention He loves His Beloved Son which is His Word, which is of Himself, which is Good.


just some of things about the Almighty that one can come to understand if they read the bible.

 

[101G]

Addressing the OP only. to me, God change not is his "WILL". that will never change. but events in time and space is changeable, because "Prayer changes things". even God repented, .... after he made man, and man became corrupt. but that did not change nor stop God's will.

only one time in the bible I know of where prayer could have change God's will, but he God told the prophet not to pray.

so God can change his mind about something, but it never affects his will toward mankind in his LOVE. I see what you're getting at.

PICJAG.

 

[marks]

if you're implying that God is humble or self loathing, your dumber then I think you are. He knows He's Good, with or without your admiration.

Well gee, how dumb do you think I am?

I'm curious . . . can you restate in a couple sentences the overall theme of my OP?

Whether or not you agree, I'm wondering if you are understanding what I'm getting at.

Much love!

 

[marks]

What is love?

Christian Love is the giving of one's self to another in goodness. Would you agree?

Much love!