Jesse, I think that I can easily reject an "eternal now"philosophy of God. Yep. (heard: sound of rejection as E.N.O. slinks off) Yep. Yep.

Yet I think there should be some. lesser, concerns that *part* of what you said might be heard as "bad infinity" when you talk the way you have about eternity. My problem leaving what you said (which basically I like) is that what impresses most is only the quantitative part of eternity; can we hear more of the qualitiative too. Please.

That's my perspective.

B.

From Time and Man

Read the fine print above.

---

(o)

POW: God must experience the existence of the cosmos.

Tom: And this cosmos, is it a temporally changing cosmos?

PotOnWheel: Yes, it is a temporally changing cosmos.

.
POW: But "changing states of mind and emotion" goes to far, imho.

PotOnWheel: For example, there is no change in the relationship or interaction between Father and Son, or Son and Spirit, etc. By "too far" I probably meant (9/10/2007) that when applied where it can't be it doesn't fit.

.
Tom: If the cosmos is temporally changing and God must experience its existence, then God must experience temporal change, right?

PotOnWheel: Yes, as to the temporally changing cosmos God experiences it.

.
Tom: But what does it mean for God to experience temporal change except to have changing states of mind and emotion with respect to the changing world?

PotOnWheel: I can't define the "state of mind" or God. I can understand what can be understood based on revelation. But this area is not open for speculation BECAUSE primacy is reserved for revelation. (I don't think its a black hole of magna-negativa--so I'll save you the bother of asking that by saying it now.) But Revelation takes primacy, especially because we can't fathom the depths of the mind of God.

PotOnWheel: And I wouldn't say that the "emotion" of God "changes." Plenty of verses use that language, but I don't feel that they are invitation to speculate. Nor do I think that they are more than something directed at affecting OUR emotions and commitments. The are paternalistic, so to speak.

.
POW: Oh, Christ already experiences our future in his glorified body, and knows the promise of victory in his Body--along with us.

Tom: Is God's experience of incarnation (and resurrection and glorification) an eternal experience? If so, how?

PotOnWheel: This is early in the morning for me. I'm going to choose to answer this "Yes, and no." I'm sure that the experience of the incarnation IS temporal...because the Bible tells me so. And, in another fashion--one enveloped in mystery--I'm ALSO sure that the experience of the incarnation is ETERNAL...because the Bible tells me so ("...from before the foundation of the world." And I can add to that (I'll see your question and raise you a second answer.) that EMPATHETICALLY the Father and the Spirit experienced the Crucifixion too. (Ware)

.
Tom: The world isn't eternal. It begins. And if God experiences the world, his experience of it begins.

PotOnWheel: You and I will have to disagree here simply about whether this logically follows. I say "no," that just because the world isn't eternal doe not mean that God's experience of it begins.

What is troubling is that Revelation and especially the "canon" (using this in Iraneus' sence of a plumbline) is damaged by the introduction of "logical" presumptions. FIRST we should say that God knew us in Christ "before the foundation of the world" AND THEN make other observations or statements. For me that HAS to be the order. So for my puny brain, I'll handle this tenatively as "yes and no" to say that God does experience (in some way) the creation in time, and God also has experienced the cosmos from all eternity.

I think that, for me, a helpful ANALOGY for this is how God's essence and energies are related and similar but yet distinct in other respects. They work, intelligibly. And temporal and eternal work too, in an analogous way.

.
Tom: And if not, then we're essentially agreeing that the life experience of God is temporal.

PotOnWheel: Well, see above on that one.

THANKS, TOM. 

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 12/19/2007 5:53:02 AM (GMT-6)

POW: For example, there is no change in the relationship or interaction between Father and Son, or Son and Spirit, etc. By "too far" I probably meant that when applied where it can't be it doesn't fit.

Tom: Yeah, where it can’t be applied it doesn’t fit. I hear you saying that it does apply to the God-world relation.

Putting aside the F-S-Sp relations, when I say “changing states of mind and emotion” I’m just saying “God experiences the temporal world.” I mention “mind” and “emotion” to say God “knows” truths about the world, and apprehends it immediately, and I mention “emotion” just to say God’s experience of the world is an affective one. He feels the world appropriately (joy, compassion, love, sorrow, etc.).

----------------------

POW: Yes, as to the temporally changing cosmos God experiences it.

Tom: Wow. You weren’t saying this years ago. I’m impressed! Let’s go work on D!

----------------------

Tom: But what does it mean for God to experience temporal change except to have changing states of mind and emotion with respect to the changing world?

POW: I can't define the "state of mind" or God.

Tom: Nice apophaticism! But really, B, you do claim to know enough about God to say “there is no change in the relationship or interaction between Father and Son, or Son and Spirit.” You don’t want to apply the words “state of mind of emotion” to God but you’re OK with applying the word “experience” to God in agreeing that God “experiences the world.” You must think you’re saying something meaningful about God in claiming he “experiences the world.” That’s a positive statement. I don’t see that it’s THAT different to say God’s experience involves the sentient and affective apprehension of the world (viz., the discernment and experience of the world’s meaning).

POW: I can understand what can be understood based on revelation.

Tom: What in all of revelation forms the basis of your claim that “there is no change in the relationship or interaction between Father and Son, or Son and Spirit”? I don’t see anything like that in the Bible. I’m not saying it’s false. I’m sure in essential ways we both understand (and don’t understand) that those relations don’t change. I just don’t know that there is in all of Scripture a basis for saying those relations can’t change in ANY possible way.

Again, I’m not saying they do. I’m wondering how you KNOW they don’t if you claim to only KNOW about God what can be based on revelation and revelation nowhere makes that claim you’re making.

POW: But this area is not open for speculation BECAUSE primacy is reserved for revelation. (I don't think its a black hole of magna-negativa--so I'll save you the bother of asking that by saying it now.) But Revelation takes primacy, especially because we can't fathom the depths of the mind of God.

Tom: If the depths of God’s mind are beyond us, how do you KNOW God cannot experience changing states of mind and emotion? For you to claim there’s no room in those depths for changing states requires a knowledge of those depths. But you say they’re beyond us. Who told you God cannot experience this? Does the Bible say it? Where?

----------------------------

POW: And I wouldn't say that the "emotion" of God "changes." Plenty of verses use that language, but I don't feel that they are invitation to speculate.

Tom: But if the Bible is full of such language then surely to conclude that God is as the Bible describes him cannot be mere speculation. On the contrary, surely it’s YOU who are doing the speculating in supposing such language does not describe a real change in emotion. If you’re basing your claim on revelation, which revelation are you appealing to if the whole of revelation describes God as experiencing changing states of mind and emotion? Are you GO guys hiding parts of the Bible the rest of us never got to read? ;o)

-----------------------------

POW: Oh, Christ already experiences our future in his glorified body, and knows the promise of victory in his Body--along with us.

Tom: Is God's experience of incarnation (and resurrection and glorification) an eternal experience? If so, how?

POW: This is early in the morning for me. I'm going to choose to answer this "Yes, and no." I'm sure that the experience of the incarnation IS temporal...because the Bible tells me so.

Tom: The Bible also describes God as experiencing changing states of mind and emotion (thinking this, then thinking that, feeling this, then feeling that all in response to the changing world God experiences).

POW: And, in another fashion--one enveloped in mystery--I'm ALSO sure that the experience of the incarnation is ETERNAL...because the Bible tells me so ("...from before the foundation of the world."

Tom: That constitutes an experience of the incarnation? But the incarnation is a God-world experience and you agreed that God’s experience of the world changes with the world. So how’s “from the foundation of…” constitute an experience of the world. All it seems to say to me is that the incarnation is planned for and the cross committed to. That’s not an experience of the incarnation or cross in itself is it?

-----------------------------

Tom: The world isn't eternal. It begins. And if God experiences the world, his experience of it begins.

POW: You and I will have to disagree here simply about whether this logically follows. I say "no," that just because the world isn't eternal doe not mean that God's experience of it begins.

Tom: And the revelation that makes this claim?

POW: What is troubling is that Revelation and especially the "canon" (using this in Iraneus' sence of a plumbline) is damaged by the introduction of "logical" presumptions. FIRST we should say that God knew us in Christ "before the foundation of the world" AND THEN make other observations or statements. For me that HAS to be the order.

Tom: But POW, aren’t you admitting logical presumptions when you determine the meaning of “before the foundation of the world”? Sure you are. The meaning of those worlds requires lots of logical presumptions (about language, experience, meaning, time, lots of stuff) that all have to be in place before the words can even mean anything. Nobody, Ireneaus first of all, can establish the meaning of “before the foundation of the world” without admitting ANY presuppositions or logic whatsoever. How do you KNOW that these words mean God “experiences the incarnation eternally”? They don’t seem to be making such a point. I read them and just see God’s commitment to do whatever it takes to make us his.

POW: So for my puny brain, I'll handle this tenatively as "yes and no" to say that God does experience (in some way) the creation in time, and God also has experienced the cosmos from all eternity.

Tom: I don’t see how you can conclude this without bringing assumptions about divinity TO the text, having already formed a commitment to the sorts of experience you think God can and cannot have. But I thought this was what you wanted to avoid doing. Be that as it may, it still leaves plenty of room for changing states of mind and emotion in God. God can know that he’ll incarnate and commit to suffering for us without being incapable of genuine changes of mind and emotion.

So where in revelation are you getting the idea that God cannot experience changing states of mind and emotion?

Just exercising the grey matter, POW. Sorry to give you a hard time. Don’t know that any of this matters really.

Tom

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 12/19/2007 5:27:42 PM (GMT-6)

http://audio.ancientfaith.com/nassif/so16_pc.mp3

http://audio.ancientfaith.com/nassif/so14_pc.mp3

http://audio.ancientfaith.com/nassif/so4_pc.mp3

http://audio.ancientfaith.com/nassif/so2_pc.mp3

http://audio.ancientfaith.com/nassif/so3_pc.mp3

http://audio.ancientfaith.com/nassif/so4_pc.mp3

http://audio.ancientfaith.com/nassif/so5_pc.mp3

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/nassif/

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 12/20/2007 4:23:41 PM (GMT-6)

For the Time Being: a Christmas Narration

by W. H. Auden (who ought to be read more)

IV. NARRATOR

These are stirring times for the editors of newspapers:
History is in the making: Mankind is on the march.
The longest aqueduct in the world is already
Under construction; the Committees on Fen-Drainage
And Soil-Conservation will issue very shortly
Their Joint Report; even the problems of Trade Cycles
And Spiralling Prices are regarded by the experts
As practically solved; and the recent restrictions
Upon aliens and free-thinking Jews are beginning
To have a salutary effect upon public morale.
True, the Western seas are still infested with pirates,
And the rising power of the Barbarian in the North
Is giving some cause for uneasiness: but we are fully
Alive to these dangers; we are rapidly arming; and both
Will be taken care of in due course: then, united
In a sense of common advantage and common right,
Our great Empire shall be secure for a thousand years.

   If we were never alone or always too busy,
Perhaps we might even believe what we know is not true:
But no one is taken in, at least not all of the time;
In our bath, or the subway, or the middle of the night,
We know very well we are not unlucky but evil,
That the dream of a Perfect State or No State at all,
To which we fly for refuge, is a part of our punishment.

   Let us therefore be contrite but without anxiety,
For Powers and Times are not gods but mortal gifts from God;
Let us acknowledge our defeats but without despair,
For all societies and epochs are transient details,
Transmitting an everlasting opportunity
That the Kingdom of Heaven may come, not in our Present
And not in our Future, but in the Fullness of Time.
Let us pray.

Clete:  "...you really think that things are so because you claim them to be?"

PoW:  No, that would be rediculous.

Its just that some things are worth rushing for and other things are worh not rushing for.

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 12/23/2007 6:33:18 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (jessemorrell) : 12/23/2007 5:55:42 PM (GMT-6)