Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Psychology Today: Emotions & Apatheia

Forum Quick Jump

103 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 4/6/2012 11:12 AM (GMT -6)

Jeff:
I have no problem holding that the Father has an undiminishable, necessary affection for His Beloved.

If the Uncreated Father UNCEASINGLY has His Uncreated Beloved in his Presence san Creation, then doesn't that mean that the Father would always experience that "undiminishable, necessary affection" as "undiminishable, necessary" satisfaction/happiness directly associable to his communion with His Beloved? It seems so to me.

So, the question is: Can the Uncreated Father's "undiminishable, necessary" sense of satisfaction/happiness directly associated with communing with His Uncreated Beloved...be diminished by anything in Creation?

Well, Jeff?

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/6/2012 11:36 AM (GMT -6)

Jeff's going to say that the Father's undiminished affection is FOR the Son necessarily and only contingently WITH (= in conscious, mutually defining enjoyment with) the Son. You don't need a second party consciously present to have "affection for" that party. The second party may not even know what's up.

I don't agree that this is all the Father's necessary experience (when it comes to experiencing the Son) amounts to, but it'll be what Jeff says. Hehe!

When are you coming up to the Twin Cities you Texan?

Tom

"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." Greg Boyd

Similitude
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968

Posted 4/8/2012 6:15 PM (GMT -6)

I see nothing in "vii.2.2 Divine Suffering and the Beauty of the Trinity" that contradicts what I'm saying. What DOES contradict what I'm saying is the claim that one divine person can not, as a MEANS to a benevolent END, forego consciousness for a short time or suffer. But I don't see how we can deny this possibility to the godhead once that godhead is conceived of as consisting of a plurality of persons. What needs to remain intact at all relevant times for the godhead are those attributes which render creation logically possible and actually headed to a benevolent end. So long as these attributes are "covered" by the godhead as a WHOLE, diversity withIN the godhead is consistent with this requirement.

E.g., Jesus spoke of things that ONLY the Father knew. Note, he did not say only the Father AND the Eternal Logos. He said ONLY the Father. This is no showstopper at all for benevolent/competent theism given the diversity that is logically possible within a godhead that consists of a plurality of persons.

I do need to get up there one of these days. I just narrowly squeezed by a lay-off. If I can keep this job a bit longer with my accumulated vacation, I should be able to squeeze in a trip.

103 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:16 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual