God and Time

[Chaps]

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.

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.

 

[maxwel]

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

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, and then 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.

.





.
.

 

[PaulThomson]

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.

Which of these statements are untrue?
Love is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29)
Love is true. (John 3:33)
Love is spirit (John 4:24)
Love is faithful (2 Cor. 1:18)
Love is one (Gal 3:20)
Love is light (1 John 1:5)

 

[PaulThomson]

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.

 

[maxwel]

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.

.

 

[PaulThomson]

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

.

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.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

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.

excatly God can be Father in heaven , son on earth , and the holy spirit in our hearts . Because one of his ministrations doesn’t exclude the other

sorry I know it’s off topic o just thought what you said is a good way to understand that concept of three who are one

 

[Cameron143]

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?

 

[maxwel]

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.

.

 

[Cameron143]

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.

 

[maxwel]

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.

.

 

[Cameron143]

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.

.

I didn't feel picked on. And I would have asked God to move time backwards so I could have gotten a better tan.

 

[PaulThomson]

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 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.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

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.

You nailed it with that event I think . It would mean he stopped the rotation and revolution of the earth. so literally brother ( comma ) if the earth doesn't turn the concept of time can't exist as we understand it I mean . there can be no day or night without the rotation and no seasons and years without the revolution when it says he stopped the sun in our sky imagine what that means he stopped the motion of the universe or at least our solar system ! Without a ticking clock " what time is it ?"

And if I asked you in ten seconds time has changed . By the nature of time it needs to be running
Lost behind and unknown ahead but fleeting away . because of mortality we see eternity fleeting away so it appears as time to us it's a result of the first motion of the earth around the sun " and there was evening and morning and the first day. Now man has a concept of time each day time has now passed a man grows older and slowly fades like a nice flower ( in your case a rotten pear ) and dies with time as it passes. Mans mortality seems to be the necessaty for time to recognize the eternal and choose life beyond times limits

 

[Cameron143]

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.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

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 😂

 

[Cameron143]

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

You're giving me far too much credit. I'm just stream of consciousness at this point.

 

[PaulThomson]

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

How do you come up with the claim that a universe is not anything? It would clearly be a very large unmoving arrangement of things.

 

[PaulThomson]

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

When I said "reality in stasis", iI was thinking of a universe of unmoving things.

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.I had in mind a universe of things that are not moving. It was supposed to be a thought experiment considering whether there would be time, if the universe existed but was static.

 

[Eli1]

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

Really Paul?
Let‘s just shoot some pool instead and say a few jokes.
Did you hear about the dull pencil? It was pointless.