Aseity and time

[tonychanyt]

Psalm 90:

2 Even from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

God is self-existent, Wiki:

Aseity (from Latin ā "from" and sē "self", plus -ity) is the property by which a being exists of and from itself. It refers to the Christian belief that God does not depend on any cause other than himself for his existence, realization, or end, and has within himself his own reason of existence. This represents God as absolutely independent and self-existent by nature.

Before God created anything, God was self-sufficient. He did not need anything or anyone.

God created space-time and everything in it. Take the air away, I die. I need to breathe to stay alive. God cannot die due to lack of air because he existed before he created air. God's existence does not depend on anything in his creation, not even space-time. God existed outside of time. God is timeless.

John 1:

3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.

Godhead divinity was an entirely self-sufficient reality before he created anything, including space-time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Psalm 90:


God is self-existent, Wiki:


Before God created anything, God was self-sufficient. He did not need anything or anyone.

God created space-time and everything in it. Take the air away, I die. I need to breathe to stay alive. God cannot die due to lack of air because he existed before he created air. God's existence does not depend on anything in his creation, not even space-time. God existed outside of time. God is timeless.

John 1:


Godhead divinity was an entirely self-sufficient reality before he created anything, including space-time.

Yes!

Carry that concept a little further, into implications. For example, consider that even logic and very reality are dependent on God —who, I have reason to believe, created according to his own nature/character. God is subject to nothing to which he does not subject himself, and there is no thing that did not result from his creating. No fact, no principle. Thus, if we consider God subject to, for example, logic, then it is only a construction of our own minds, or, if we are right, he is the source of that to which he subjects himself.

 

[tonychanyt]

Yes!

Carry that concept a little further, into implications. For example, consider that even logic and very reality are dependent on God —who, I have reason to believe, created according to his own nature/character. God is subject to nothing to which he does not subject himself, and there is no thing that did not result from his creating. No fact, no principle. Thus, if we consider God subject to, for example, logic, then it is only a construction of our own minds, or, if we are right, he is the source of that to which he subjects himself.

Check out How does God perform thinking?

 

[Jonaitis]

God is self-existent

God's aseity implies divine simplicity as well! If He is self-existent and self-sufficient, then He is not any particular thing, but beingness itself, free of objectivity and composition. You cannot reduce reality to anything else, and that is what He is in all that He is—pure reality.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God's aseity implies divine simplicity as well! If He is self-existent and self-sufficient, then He is not any particular thing, but beingness itself, free of objectivity and composition. You cannot reduce reality to anything else, and that is what He is in all that He is—pure reality.

Or, at least, that is what he has to be, from our perspective. I.e. that is what he looks like to our minds. But those things are from him, or even of him, but they are not HIM. (Or, that is one way to say what I'm trying to mean.) Our words, concepts and mental constructions may wax poetic and beautiful, and even make sense to us, but they will not in this life approach a valid description of God.

 

[tonychanyt]

Or, at least, that is what he has to be, from our perspective. I.e. that is what he looks like to our minds. But those things are from him, or even of him, but they are not HIM. (Or, that is one way to say what I'm trying to mean.) Our words, concepts and mental constructions may wax poetic and beautiful, and even make sense to us, but they will not in this life approach a valid description of God.

Right, grammar is finite, and language is countably infinite, but God is transcendent and beyond any infinity.

 

[Jonaitis]

Or, at least, that is what he has to be, from our perspective. I.e. that is what he looks like to our minds. But those things are from him, or even of him, but they are not HIM. (Or, that is one way to say what I'm trying to mean.) Our words, concepts and mental constructions may wax poetic and beautiful, and even make sense to us, but they will not in this life approach a valid description of God.

Yes, God is beyond any conceptual or mental constructs, they only reduce Him to a human idea. As ineffable as He is, silence is greatest description we can attribute to Him, and meditation on that silence is the greatest form of worship. He is simply "that" in which this universe appears to exist, but even then, that is only relational to us as reducible as our finite minds can reach.

O glory to that ineffable and unspeakable Truth!

 

[Jonaitis]

Right, grammar is finite, and language is countably infinite, but God is transcendent and beyond any infinity.

Grammar and language are human inventions to convey what can be relatable to our experience, but they cannot reach the Absolute.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, God is beyond any conceptual or mental constructs, they only reduce Him to a human idea. As ineffable as He is, silence is greatest description we can attribute to Him, and meditation on that silence is the greatest form of worship. He is simply "that" in which this universe appears to exist, but even then, that is only relational to us as reducible as our finite minds can reach.

O glory to that ineffable and unspeakable Truth!

Please expand on that; explain WHY "silence is greatest description we can attribute to Him, and meditation on that silence is the greatest form of worship." I'm not going to say that that is nonsense, but it does sound manmade, and not Bible.

 

[Jonaitis]

Please expand on that; explain WHY "silence is greatest description we can attribute to Him, and meditation on that silence is the greatest form of worship." I'm not going to say that that is nonsense, but it does sound manmade, and not Bible.

While the idea of silence as a description of God and meditation as worship isn't explicitly stated in the Bible, but because of the limitations of human language and understanding when it comes to describing God, silence is a more accurate representation of His ineffable nature. Meditation on this silence can be seen as a form of worship because it transcends words and concepts, allowing for a deeper connection with God beyond mere constructs.

When we meditate on God through the lens of the Bible, there still is the practice of silent meditation in awe of His glory and works. This awe and connection is where no tongue or thought can further expound.

 

[Mark Quayle]

While the idea of silence as a description of God and meditation as worship isn't explicitly stated in the Bible, but because of the limitations of human language and understanding when it comes to describing God, silence is a more accurate representation of His ineffable nature. Meditation on this silence can be seen as a form of worship because it transcends words and concepts, allowing for a deeper connection with God beyond mere constructs.

When we meditate on God through the lens of the Bible, there still is the practice of silent meditation in awe of His glory and works. This awe and connection is where no tongue or thought can further expound.

Zen?? I'm sorry, but this does not sound like scripture. There is a time for something like indulging in the mental state of mere admiration and delight in God's transcendence, I do not disagree, but this is not the proscribed practice of worship, I don't think.

 

[Jonaitis]

Zen?? I'm sorry, but this does not sound like scripture. There is a time for something like indulging in the mental state of mere admiration and delight in God's transcendence, I do not disagree, but this is not the proscribed practice of worship, I don't think.

I understand why that would cause you to scratch your head.

Maybe we aren't in agreement on this, but I do see "worship" more than a practice, but an aim in practice toward giving reverence, adoration, gratitude, and devotion to God. Contemplation and appreciation, therefore, is the driving purpose of our prescribed practices in worship. Our meditation on God's holiness is the heart of worship, without which, it becomes meaningless. It is the greatest form, in my view, because it is everything that any practice of worship aims at, therefore, it requires no particular form to achieve that end.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I understand why that would cause you to scratch your head.

Maybe we aren't in agreement on this, but I do see "worship" more than a practice, but an aim in practice toward giving reverence, adoration, gratitude, and devotion to God. Contemplation and appreciation, therefore, is the driving purpose of our prescribed practices in worship. Our meditation on God's holiness is the heart of worship, without which, it becomes meaningless. It is the greatest form, in my view, because it is everything that any practice of worship aims at, therefore, it requires no particular form to achieve that end.

I will leave you with this, which is not a direct contradiction of what you are saying: 1 Therefore I urge you, brothers, on account of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.