Re: [TruthTalk] re: the contraints of love

Sun, 05 Feb 2006 10:36:49 -0800

We have gone from "horsepucky"  [a most disgusting consideration]  to   Oh. ...Never mind.      If there is more to say  -- I am listening.  You know that, right? 
 
Debbie Sawczak was concerned about my use of "obligated" in its various forms, fearing a stumbling block scenario.   Obviously,  I had better take this advice seriously., 
 
I just went into the kitchen and prswented my mantra on this.  When I got to the word "obligated" she threatened to throw out the Super Bowl bean dip she was making for this afternoon.  "Obligation" versus the trash can and/or horsepuckey.  Gee,  I wonder what I will do? 
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Oh. ... Never mind.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] re: the contraints of love

I take it that you disagree with what I said !!??  :-)
Let me try it again.  God = the inter-personal relatingship of the Father, Son and Spirit.   Part of this "immanent domain" is love as in "God is love" ...........  an observation of His ontology.   If "love" is an action expressed towards others, the statement "the Divine Unit (if you will) is love"   demands His activity OUTSIDE Himself in addition to "internal' expressions   (we are to love others as we love ourselves  --  an example of the the Divine activity, no doubt,   God loves Himself and this love defines His activity toward others.)   .  
 
Who sits in judgment of God?  Certainly not his creation.  How is it then,  that the creative activity of God's love could ever [properly] be considered "proof" of His existence by His creation or taht He must prove Himself to that which He has created?     
 
I think we are talking about persectives.   That God will create is not to say that some external principle exists that obligates this activity.   I am not saying that. 
But I am saying that God's nature compells Him to act toward others  --  whether living or not.   He WILL create is obligatory (to me) but only because of who He IS.    He does not create to prove Himself, rather, He creates to be Himself  (that is to say He creates out of the nature of His being.)  It is not that he MUST but that He WILL.
 
You disagree? 
 
 
 
 
  
 
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Further, if, indeed, God is love, community is required and God HAD to be a creator God. I say this because the defining of love is meaningless without community. 
 
 
BALDERDASH! OOPS, excuse me . . . I mean HORSEPUCKY! If God is as you defined him the other day -- the inner-personal relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- then he is "Community" by implication and didn't HAVE to do anything to be complete in his inner essence. Creation can therefore be a loving extension of this Holy Communion, illustrative of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit's desire to bring others into the mutual indwelling which IS his eternal nature.
 
Besides that, I loved your post, John :>)
 
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 5:13 AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] re: the contraints of love

 

I have been a little surprised at the resistance of some to the idea that God is obligated to a particular course of action.   Paul speaks of being “constrained by love”  and even goes so far as to give definition to the action of love  (I Cor 13: 4-7), suggesting that if “love” is to prevail,  his defining must be in evidence.   Love functions under the same constraints regardless of who is the functionary.  We have not reason to believe otherwise.    "God is love" must mean, then, that Paul’s definition is drawn from his view of this fact  [God is love.]   What other authority would exist in the mind of Paul?   Further, if, indeed, God is love, community is required and God HAD to be a creator God.  I say this because the defining of love is meaningless without community. 

 

Further  [as a side-bar],   God cannot create Himself.   Consequently, all creaturely beings that God created are less than Himself in terms of both immanence and economy and   “…….all   …..  are falling short of His glory “  is a given, is it not?   God as a redeemer is forever a statement of immanence!!   There is little difference between angels and mankind.   Both have made decisions that are poorly advised.  Satan came from one of these decisions  -- and the hordes that followed him.   The bible is not about a discussion of the angelic world, except as it relates to ours. But it is apparent that theirs is no more a robotic existence than ours.   If angels no longer “fall away,”  what happened in terms of the redeeming activity of God?     Their story is, yet , untold. 

 

Back to the subject at hand  -------   redemption is an assignment borne out of necessity on the part of God.   In Hebrews 2:17   (“… therefore He had to become like His brothers and sisters in every respect…”),  obligation is a function of the Greek wording in that text.   We only know of the requirements of Divine Intervention through revelation  (as expressed in Hebrews 2:17 and Acts 2:28 for example).  But that God as a being of love is required to function in a given manner is not an idea to be ignored.& amp; amp; nbsp;  If God cannot choose to sin  (James 1:13) , why would be think that He cannot choose to act  as love is revealed in scripture?    If He is free to be what He is , then, He must be that way !!   And we can take confidence in the notion that God does not change.   He does not change because He cannot change.   We make God a creature if we think otherwise. 

 

jd

 


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is
believed to be clean.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is
believed to be clean.

Reply via email to