God and Time

A small correction here.

You said, "love is also part of who God is"?

Love is the whole of God.

God is love.

1 Corinthians 8:3
If anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

Love is not an attribute of God?

Love is the only concise definition of His entire nature, will, etc.

Are you so sure that time is not a divine attribute?

Well, I guess what I meant by that is that love is one of God’s attributes…along with omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, patience, life, truth, etc.

I agree that God is love, but I’m not so sure about the idea that “love is the whole of God “ or ”love is the only concise definition of His entire nature, will, etc.” First, I am not even sure what this means. I think we have to be cautious of the bumper sticker theology that is prevalent today that takes solitary verses which tries to sum up the whole of God in a phrase. I mean, yes, the Bible says God is love. But it also says…

God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29)
God is true. (John 3:33)
God is spirit (John 4:24)
God is faithful (2 Cor. 1:18)
God is one (Gal 3:20)
God is light (1 John 1:5)

We also read in Scripture about God pouring out his wrath, that vengeance is His, that God is a jealous God, and so forth. So, it is true that central aspects of God’s nature are his love, patience, mercy, holiness, and faithfulness. Yet we need to be careful that we dont take one verse and use it to override the whole of Scripture. God’s eternal nature is also a key aspect of whom He reveals Himself to be. So there is no need to use one attribute to disregard the others.

Misunderstanding of my post:
1.) I never mentioned the word "time" in the post you are quoting (post #214).
2.) I was referring to an equivocation regarding the word "love", which I tried to make clear by setting your own words to bold.

Nonetheless...
1.) If we want to talk about "time" being a divine attribute: we would first have to examine time, by positing a very careful definition, as well as giving some thought to what causes it.
2.) After this kind of careful examination, I think we'd find that "time" simply doesn't meet the qualifications of a divine attribute.


God Bless.

.





.
.

Nothing causes time. However, motion causes time to be noticed and measurable.

I think the majority of physicists and philosophers would disagree... as well as most theologians.

.

Well, I guess what I meant by that is that love is one of God’s attributes…along with omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, patience, life, truth, etc.

I agree that God is love, but I’m not so sure about the idea that “love is the whole of God “ or ”love is the only concise definition of His entire nature, will, etc.” First, I am not even sure what this means. I think we have to be cautious of the bumper sticker theology that is prevalent today that takes solitary verses which tries to sum up the whole of God in a phrase. I mean, yes, the Bible says God is love. But it also says…

God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29)
God is true. (John 3:33)
God is spirit (John 4:24)
God is faithful (2 Cor. 1:18)
God is one (Gal 3:20)
God is light (1 John 1:5)

We also read in Scripture about God pouring out his wrath, that vengeance is His, that God is a jealous God, and so forth. So, it is true that central aspects of God’s nature are his love, patience, mercy, holiness, and faithfulness. Yet we need to be careful that we dont take one verse and use it to override the whole of Scripture. God’s eternal nature is also a key aspect of whom He reveals Himself to be. So there is no need to use one attribute to disregard the others.

If you can't interpret the clear words of scripture without your interpretation having the approval of scientists for your interpretation, you are in a bit of a bind. Fortunately, I am not so bound. It seems pretty obvious that if there existed a perfectly static reality, there would be no way to measure the time passing in that motionless state. But as soon as some movement happens, there is a before and an after, and intervals of time become measurable. The amount of time the reality had been in stasis would not be definable, but it had been in stasis for some undefinite period of time nevertheless. It's not difficult.

That's an interesting premise. Didn't God stop the movement of the sun one time during a battle? Did time stand still?

It's not a good premise, it's a bit of messy equivocation resulting from a failure to ever define terms.


The Problem:
PaulThomas claims time has no cause (uncreated), by referring to a situation pre-creation, in which there IS NO TIME, and then implies that this non-time is some kind of actual time but which is uncreated (and an uncreated thing would be eternal by definition, and co-existent with God, and that's heresy.)
A.) This view, that time has no cause, doesn't correlate with science, philosophy, or theology... and it shows he has no understanding of the fundamental concepts of time.
(He thinks he is describing a pre-creation situation of "uncreated time", but according to physics and philosophy, it's a situation of non-time... no time... zero time. He doesn't understand the fundamental differences between these things, so he confuses and equivocates.)
B.) The idea of time being uncreated, and thus eternal, also leads to theological heresy... as nothing is uncreated except God.


BIGGER PROBLEM:
If we consider that PaulThomas is an Open Theist, who doesn't believe God knows all, or knows the future... we know he has heretical views on God's divine attribute of omniscience. Then we see him here, suggesting time is uncreated, making it eternal, like God... which undermines MORE of God's divine attributes, God's aseity and eternality. (As God is self existent, and nothing can be eternal but God.)

PaulThomas seems to have a propensity to undermine God's divine attributes.

.

I'm just thinking out loud. As I was reading the discussion, that incident came to mind. I had never considered the ramifications of it or what it might mean doctrinally.
Hence...interesting.

I wasn't picking on you... a lot of things are "interesting."
: )

Few thoughts on that story in Joshua, about the sun.
If the sun stands still, does that stop time?
Did Joshua stop moving?
Did everything freeze?
No.
Time continued to move forward, just as always.
The sun merely did something unusual.

God Bless Brother.
Hope you're having a great week.

.

It's not a good premise, it's a bit of messy equivocation resulting from a failure to ever define terms.


The Problem:
PaulThomas claims time has no cause (uncreated), by referring to a situation pre-creation, in which there IS NO TIME, and then implies that this non-time is some kind of actual time but which is uncreated (and an uncreated thing would be eternal by definition, and co-existent with God, and that's heresy.)
A.) This view, that time has no cause, doesn't correlate with science, philosophy, or theology... and it shows he has no understanding of the fundamental concepts of time.
(He thinks he is describing a pre-creation situation of "uncreated time", but according to physics and philosophy, it's a situation of non-time... no time... zero time. He doesn't understand the fundamental differences between these things, so he confuses and equivocates.)
B.) The idea of time being uncreated, and thus eternal, also leads to theological heresy... as nothing is uncreated except God.


BIGGER PROBLEM:
If we consider that PaulThomas is an Open Theist, who doesn't believe God knows all, or knows the future... we know he has heretical views on God's divine attribute of omniscience. Then we see him here, suggesting time is uncreated, making it eternal, like God... which undermines MORE of God's divine attributes, God's aseity and eternality. (As God is self existent, and nothing can be eternal but God.)

PaulThomas seems to have a propensity to undermine God's divine attributes.

.

That's an interesting premise. Didn't God stop the movement of the sun one time during a battle? Did time stand still?

I'm just thinking out loud. As I was reading the discussion, that incident came to mind. I had never considered the ramifications of it or what it might mean doctrinally.
Hence...interesting.

I see my reasoning doesn't sit well with your theological ideology. Your response is to misrepresent, straw-man, well-poison and scaremonger. and cry "Heresy." But I trust there are posters who can actually think and haven't handed over their sense-making others.

In claiming that there is no time in a universe of objects in stasis, but that if something suddenly starts to move, at that point time comes into being, you are actually confirming that time-keeping requires movement. And the implication of this is that there is no time-keeping possible in a motion-free reality. That is, time cannot be detected and measured in a motionless reality. There can be no evidence of time. But the principle of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" which contradicts your own claim that the absence of evidence of time proves absence of time.

Many people are deconstructing their Christian faith because they can no longer accept themselves mindlessly affirming by faith some dogmatic claim of their religious elite when that dogma is logically implausible, and their religious elitists cast them out as heretics for arriving at a different opinion from them on something. A lot of Christians want to graduate from their spiritual nursery , but their leaders with mindsets like yours, won't let them.

But that isn't the argument. Nothing existed. It wasn't a universe in stasis; it wasn't anything.

His " reasoning" v your " theological ideology " in a bible discussion forum 😂

But that isn't the argument. Nothing existed. It wasn't a universe in stasis; it wasn't anything.

But that isn't the argument. Nothing existed. It wasn't a universe in stasis; it wasn't anything.

I've spent 65 years learning about time and space experientially. i have a ew clues about how it works.