Author Topic: Qualities of God (Read 8377 times)

Trinity · « **Reply #30 on:** September 28, 2010, 07:51:43 AM »

I will have to ponder your questions about grace and essence. In the meantime, I have resolved the other questions to MY satisfaction by looking at His omnipotence. If God couldn't be finite He would not be all powerful. He who has no boundaries, places boundaries on Himself, just as He did with nature (esp. in the book of Job.) When He gave us free will He bound Himself not to violate it; when He hung on the cross He did not come down, even though that was an option for Him and must have been a sore temptation. One could go on.

God is above the law, yet He observes the law. He gave us the ability to ignore it and pretty well do as we please, yet He ASKS us to be like Him and observe it, too. Now that is a case of right order being turned on its head. The Creator honors creation. Again, He is omnipotent---nothing is lacking to Him.

Trinity · « **Reply #31 on:** September 28, 2010, 08:17:27 AM »

Grace AND essence. "I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me." St. Paul. The vine and the branches works here.

Lybus · « **Reply #32 on:** September 28, 2010, 01:32:23 PM »

You know Trinity, it's really nice to have someone else to talk to about this kind of stuff. I've tried to start philosophical/theological discussions on this board before, but they never really got going, for some reason. Thanks for talking about this stuff with me.

I'll need to think further about the discussion.

Trinity · « **Reply #33 on:** September 28, 2010, 02:37:41 PM »

Ditto, Lybus. I can't understand why people would rather talk about Michael Jackson than God. The one is toooo sad and the other soooo happy.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #34 on:** September 28, 2010, 05:32:12 PM »

I was taught in Catholic school that sanctifying grace is a share of God's life.

Trinity · « **Reply #35 on:** September 28, 2010, 07:09:27 PM »

I'm sorry, Lybus. I forgot to explain to you what didn't work with me with your ice cream analogy. I think it's the "ingesting" part. Even though I know we ingest the Host and I equate that with receiving grace, I am more comfortable with "infusion" or even "osmosis". Does that make any sense?

Trinity · « **Reply #36 on:** September 30, 2010, 06:05:42 AM »

What became of you, Lybus? I've been thinking about grace and have concluded that there is nothing I can liken it to. The closest I can get is air and that doesn't do it, either. There is nothing we can do to merit it, or grasp it. It's total gift, and we don't even necessarily know when we have it. Or don't have it.

Lybus · « **Reply #37 on:** September 30, 2010, 11:20:22 AM »

Sorry I've had a lot on my mind regarding school.

However, I came up with this really weird theory that might help resolve what I said about our essence earlier, about how it seems that we must follow a pantheistic argument or believe that we can exist independently of God.

Well, in an earlier essay i wrote for a class, I talked about how God must necessarily exist because of the law of conservation of mass. In other words, matter cannot be created or destroyed. this goes for energy as well. Basically, if one were to have a chemical reaction in an isolated beaker, the amount of mass and the amount of energy would remain the same. The reactant would equal the product, mass-wise
However, the only problem with this law is that according to this law, nothing could exist. How could the "mass" come about if nothing can create it or destroy it?
My solution is an infinite. I show this with a mathematical concept. It is safe to assume that "mass" is finite, correct?
Well, it's actually quite simple. If you multiply four by 1/4, you get one. If you multiply one thousand by 1/1000, you also, get one. However, multiply nothing, which is equivalent to 1/infinity, by infinity, and you get a finite number. Interesting, no?
This basically says that in order to create anything with an infinitely low amount of materials (or nothing), one must be infinite. So only God can break the Law of conservation of mass.

My point in telling you all this? My theory is that God didn't just create all of creation simply once, he is creating creation every single instant. Think about it. God is infinite, so that means he must be everywhere, correct? If God were to create a cube, wouldn't it make sense to believe that the cube would be completely and entirely consumed and destroyed by the infinite presence of God? How could a finite thing have any room to exist inside an infinite presence?
So, because I am still here typing this, and you are still here replying to my messages, I must assume that somehow we aren't entirely consumed by an infinite presence. So, my idea, is that in some weird way, we are being created, and then being created again before we can be destroyed. So, God must be infinitely aware of even the smallest particle at all times in order to do this, otherwise he would at one instant create a chair, and at another instant....a tree or something. So God MUST be omnipotent AND all knowing in order for him to constantly keep creating us at such an infinitely alarming rate.

So how does this help with the pantheistic/independent of God view, both heretical? Well, for one, we really are distinct from God, in that we are a finite thing that was outputted from an infinite source. Two, our existence is so fragile that we are quickly consumed by God's infinite being, that is, we are instantly consumed. However, we are created again before we can be destroyed.
So, our real essence, I think, is not entirely existence, as more that we are dependent. Our essence is our dependence on a being whose existence is so tied with ours as to be impossible to break without us being completely and entirely consumed.

This also helps support the idea that God never changes, that he wasn't a creator just once, but that he is always a creator, always building up and modifying his creation as is fit to his never-changing will.
This is a really cool way to look at God in that you see that he is really an artist, a mathematician, and an engineer. He is infinitely serious about his creation in that he keeps things consistent in a mind-bogging way and never goes against the rules he set up (excluding miracles), and yet he is infinitely playful, in that we are his toys, and he plays with us in a very loving manner. It also shows his deep respect for us, in that he is always taking the time to create us anew, and yet keep us the same (by this I mean over a very short period of time) and that he loves us in the present moment, almost as if he is savoring our existence. Pretty sweet, huh?

Lybus · « **Reply #38 on:** September 30, 2010, 11:25:03 AM »

When I was talking about grace earlier, I sort of jumped to the conclusion that we could see sanctifying grace as God. I didn't think people might have a problem with that. My idea is that while God is everywhere, we can choose to have him inside us, in that we open ourselves to Him. The more of God we allow in, the more grace we will naturally obtain.
Grace is good, so I tried to compare it to something that is easy to conceive of, and is something most people really like, such as ice cream. We can either choose to have the ice cream, or we can choose not to. Likewise, we can choose to open our mouths and let God come in, or we can choose not to.
And ofc that all goes into Mortal sin, by committing the sin, you choose to vomit it all up, etc.

Let me know if this makes any sense, or if I'm incorrect in looking at grace this way.

That also goes with your idea that grace cannot be gained by any merit we have. All we can do is just take it and think about the greatness of God and how undeserving we really are...because we really haven't done anything for Him, and yet he insists on giving such gifts to us.

Lybus · « **Reply #39 on:** September 30, 2010, 11:33:45 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

I was taught in Catholic school that sanctifying grace is a share of God's life.

Yea i think that's right, and it goes with the idea that God is simple and that he is sharing himself with us.

Trinity · « **Reply #40 on:** September 30, 2010, 04:24:22 PM »

To say something about your first post here, that sure takes care of the "wound up clock" theory. I very much imagine that God finds us amusing. Must think about this some more.

Trinity · « **Reply #41 on:** October 01, 2010, 09:09:54 AM »

You have given me so much "meat" I can hardly chew it. We do know, of course, that if God ever forgot us, we would cease to exist. So there is merit in your theory that He is constantly creating us. I'm afraid I don't understand your posit that His infinity would destroy us.

Lybus · « **Reply #42 on:** October 01, 2010, 11:01:29 AM »

Well, that idea actually finds its source from the Old Testament. On the mount, Moses had to turn around, lest he was destroyed utterly by the face of God, while receiving the two stone tablets.

So God's Being is powerful enough to destroy us, perhaps even our very souls, as well. So there is some biblical evidence to back up the idea that infinity would destroy the finite utterly. The Beatific vision (when we finally get to bear witness to it) probably requires God's protection somehow, perhaps some shield he creates between himself and us, and likewise, recreates it, or simply recreates our souls at every moment.

Yea sorry, a lot of what I said took me a long time to ponder and I kind of mushed it all together in one short post. I'm probably making too many assumptions about what I said, in that I'm taking ideas that I should explain or prove further before using those ideas to bring about an even more abstract argument.

Trinity · « **Reply #43 on:** October 01, 2010, 11:24:14 AM »

No, I think it is just our bodies that can't handle it. As I understand it, Mary died of love.

Lybus · « **Reply #44 on:** October 01, 2010, 05:10:30 PM »

I think I've thought of a major flaw in my idea that God creates us at every moment infinitely.

If God were to create us infinitely and at every moment, then how could there be any progression of time? In other words, if each interval which God recreates the world is infinitely small, then how could there be any movement on our part? Let's say that one second goes by. God would have recreated the entire world an infinite number of times in this time sequence. Again, in one hour, God would also have created the world an infinite number times. In other words, what's the difference between one hour and one second? Wouldn't we be frozen in time, as it would take an infinite number of intervals for there to be any movement of any kind? Basically it would take an eternity for me to move my hand an inch.

And yes, it HAS to be an infinite number of times, because if God is infinite, then the infinity of God would destroy the world instantaneously. It wouldn't make sense for an infinite to consume a finite in any time that is finite, since an infinite would have to behave as an infinite, so that means its effect would be instantaneous. So God would have to recreate the world instantaneously again in order to avoid its total destruction.

Basically, this is something that needs more clarifying. I think I've thought of a solution, but I want to think about it further.