One way of defining the Christian God

a reply to: Peeple
My inclusion of the "God is a communicator" clause has the side-effect of ruling out the idea that he isn't doing everything by conscious will (as he claims to be doing).
The "choosing" is part of the communication; since most of the communication is indirect, via other humans, there has to be a "first point of contact". For this purpose, the group of intermediary contacts needs to be kept in being, and that is what the "promise" amounts to. It doesn't guarantee that life will be comfortable for individual members, as several of the prophets will testify.

a reply to: DISRAELI

That was a good answer. Kudos to you.

When you put the qualifier Christian God into the title.... well that quieted me

seeing as the Xtian God is Jesus the Christ & Redeemer/Savior
He is meant to be felt & experienced as an emotion (like Paul on the Road-to-Damascus event) and not 'Defined' so much

much of what Jesus is - is Magical/Mystical/Supernatural Powerful...out of step with normal matters in 'time' -> speaks in Parables and Metaphors constantly … like everything is layered like an onion in meaning or cause or future history

Jesus is Triune Godhead at that:

God Is Triune But the Bible also emphatically and unambiguously declares that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:8; Isaiah 45:18; Deuteronomy 6:4; Malachi 2:10, James 2:19; Mark 12:29). Hence, taking all the Scriptures into account, orthodox Christian theology has always affirmed that the one true God is triune in nature—three co-equal and co-eternal persons in the Godhead.

sorry to just hit-&-run...but the Xtian God is nothing I can believe in so I remove myself from further posting

originally posted by: St Udio
When you put the qualifier Christian God into the title.... well that quieted me
seeing as the Xtian God is Jesus the Christ & Redeemer/Savior

Yes, the Incarnation was the third section of the OP, as the consequence of "God who communicates".

Sorry...but all religions that make God all-powerful and loving are wrong. Satan's continued existence is proof of that.

a reply to: carewemust
Satan is one of the concepts of religion. If that religion is wrong, then there is no Satan (which means that your proof disappears).

originally posted by: carewemust
Sorry...but all religions that make God all-powerful and loving are wrong. Satan's continued existence is proof of that.

The whole purpose of satan is so that developing souls can discern between good and evil. Otherwise we would be stripped of our choice and free will.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

There is no such thing as creation (beginning) or destruction (end) along an infinite plain. If God is "the beginning and end" then neither exist because that implies an infinite loop, one always leads into the other.

Right now is creation and destruction in one instant.
What is happening always pesently is the beginning and the end.

This is God.... nothing is separate.

The separate person can only appear in time but where is time now? Time only appears in thought stories and thought stories can only appear presently.
Everything is happening/appearing as one presently.

There is only presence. What is present is what there is.....
This is what everyone is looking for...... but no one will ever find. How can what actually is, be found?

And how can anyone define what this is?

originally posted by: St Udio
..

seeing as the Xtian God is Jesus the Christ & Redeemer/Savior

If that were really so then who is “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”?

Ephesians 1:3a (KJ)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, ...

There's nothing Christian or biblical about a Triune God or the doctrine of the Trinity other than that many people view the Trinity as “the central doctrine of the Christian religion.” (but that doesn't make it so, so I probably didn't even needed to say "other than") According to this teaching, the Father, Son, and holy spirit are three persons in one God. Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” Why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible.” Because the Trinity is “not a biblical doctrine,” Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts​—even twisting them—​to find support for their teaching. They have even added entire sentences to some Bible translations to lend further support to their teaching (such as at 1 John 5:7). But none of the verses they bring up and twist for this purpose, ever really answers the question that I raised at the start of this comment, in some kind of honest and informative way that is (or something that doesn't boil down to a contradiction or ends up completely ignoring the phrase I quoted from Eph. 1:3, as if it's not clear that that verse and other verses like it in the Bible are talking about someone else other than Jesus there as well, not merely Jesus in another mode, form or nature).

Does the identity of God have to be “a very profound mystery”? It did not seem so to Jesus. In his prayer to his Father, Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father when he said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) If we believe Jesus and understand the plain teaching of the Bible, we will respect him as the divine Son of God that he is. We will also worship Jehovah as “the only true God.”

Psalm 83:18 (KJ)

That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.

Psalm 34:1 (NW)

I will praise Jehovah at all times;

His praise will be on my lips constantly.




Song 1 Jehovah's Attributes vocals

a reply to: whereislogic

God the Father is the invisible seeing and knowing aspect to this present appearance.
Christ the Son is this present appearance.

There is only presence......this is wholeness.....there is nothing else.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: whereislogic

God the Father is the invisible seeing and knowing aspect to this present appearance.
Christ the Son is this present appearance.

There is only presence......this is wholeness.....there is nothing else.

Such is the Living God.

"Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don't know how to interpret this present time?"

Although we should not get confused and think that means time eludes God, because Alpha-Omega encompasses all of it.

a reply to: cooperton

God is timeless being.

Where is time now?

a reply to: cooperton

Where did the passage in quotation marks come from?

a reply to: cooperton
That particular member is addicted to meaningless waffle as a form of entertainment. Arguing with him will not be very frutiful.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I am not convinced that he/she is arguing?

Coopertons post is a little vague....
Maybe you would like to rephrase his/her post so I can see where the arguement lies in your eyes?

a reply to: Itisnowagain
He made the mistake of assuming that you meant something specific, and addressed the point he thought you were making. Whereas you and I know that your posts are pure verbiage, and not having any meaning is part of the object of the exercise.
I'm just warning him of the danger of being "piskie-led".

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: cooperton

Where did the passage in quotation marks come from?

Its Luke 12:56

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: cooperton
That particular member is addicted to meaningless waffle as a form of entertainment. Arguing with him will not be very frutiful.

haha I have read a couple of the arguments between you two.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I do not understand why you are meddling in quarrels that are not your own.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: cooperton

Where did the passage in quotation marks come from?

Its Luke 12:56

Thank you.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
“The Creator.
That which is not the Universe, but the originator of the Universe.”

Eight years ago, a philosopher on this forum invited Christians to volunteer their own definitions of God. The question of “proof” was going to be postponed for a later thread (which never happened).
I took two bites at the cherry. The opening statement here was my first attempt. In a second post, I expanded the proposed definition as follows;

God is a Creator
God is one who Communicates
God is one who becomes Incarnate

God is a Creator

I see this view as distinct from both Monism and Dualism.

As I understand the difference;
Monism resolves everything to one point of origin.
Dualism resolves everything to two points of origin, distinct and independent.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Monism, because the created universe is understood as distinct from God.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Dualism, because the created universe is understood as dependent upon God.

My private theory is that Creation teaching ought to be called "One-and-a-half-ism", but I don't suppose it will catch on.

As far as I can see, this involves the traditional teaching of "ex nihilo" ("out of nothing") Creation.

Because if God is "creating" using pre-existing raw material, then the material is not genuinely dependent upon him- this has become Dualism.

Or if God is producing the material of the universe "out of himself", then the material is not genuinely distinct- this has become Monism.

"Ex nihilo" is the only logical alternative, which is presumably why the teaching was developed in the first place.

God is one who Communicates

This assumption is built into Biblical religion.

In the first place, the Bible is believed to contain examples of communication (as reported, for example, by the prophets).

Furthermore, the Bible is believed to reflect a policy of communication.
It is said that God is using the Bible to "reveal himself", and so Biblical religion used to be described as "revealed religion".

The belief that "God is one who Communicates" links back with the belief that "God is one who Creates".

In the first place, some of the content of the communication points to God as Creator.

The proper Biblical answer to the question "Why do you believe your God made the universe?" is not really "Because that's the only way to account for the universe."
The truly Biblical answer is "Because he says he did, and I believe him."

But I think the very act of communication also points to God as a Creator.

Any act of communication necessarily implies a distinction between the communicator and the other party.
I've already said the Biblical understanding of Creation involves a distinction between God and the universe.

An act of communication implies the existence of a "will" in the communicator, or at least some sort of analogy of one.
But the same could be said, surely, of an act of "Creation".

Finally, a God who creates a universe thereby sets up a relationship between himself and the universe.
The effect of communication is to set up a relationship between himself and individuals (or even a group of individuals) within the same universe.

I assume that a purely monistic deity would not be communicating with, or setting up a relationship with, parts of itself.

My point is that
The idea of the God who Creates
and the idea of the God who Communicates
are very akin to one another.

The kind of God who would Create would also be the kind of God who could Communicate.

God is one who becomes Incarnate

I could hardly, really, leave this out of a definition of the Christian God.

The understanding is that the Incarnation is a more direct presence of God within the created universe.

If this is true, it's the ultimate form of Communication, as the author of Hebrews points out;
"God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets
but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son".

But it's also the ultimate form of "establishing a relationship";

Because the doctrine of the Incarnation is that the Creator and his creation, divinity and humanity, are bound together within the person of the Son.
The bond is understood to be irrevocable.
It's impossible for a relationship to get any closer than that.

Anyone who tries to understand the church's teaching about the Incarnation will discover that it's all about finding the right "balance".

On the one hand, the distinction between the divinity and the humanity must not be exaggerated, to the point that the unity disappears.
O the other hand, the unity between them must not be exaggerated, to the point that the distinction disappears.
The correct position is somewhere halfway between the two extremes.

But this is exactly what I said, at the beginning of this piece, about Creation;
That it occupied a halfway position between Monism and Dualism.

So it seems to me that the "balancing act" which Jehovah's Witnesses love to mock, when it comes in the teaching about the Incarnation, is also inherent in the very doctrine of the Creation itself.

The kind of God who would Create is also the kind of God who could become Incarnate.


I began by naming the Christian God as
The one who Creates
The one who Communicates
The one who becomes Incarnate.

I now suggest that these three ideas are akin to one another.
They belong together, naturally.

Whether you can believe them or not, they all belong to the same kind of God.

None of this suggests to me an omnipotent or omniscient being. It suggests to me that either this thing enjoys playing convoluted games for whatever reason, or it has been given instructions to follow and is as prisoner as the rest of us.