Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Throughout Scripture, we see God's very make-up being described otherwise, i.e., the foundation of His throne being righteousness and justice and etc. God is described as Truth, as Light.
Further, when we consider what is ultimately right, the same is always in juxtaposition to God. When we consider absolute truth, it is with Him in mind, as it is wit ...[text shortened]... exemplfier of all things good. Man has no higher standard nor source for what is right.
God has always and forever been viewed by the Scripture of the penultimate exemplifier of all things good.
And all these things get jumbled and require complicated theologizing to try to weave them into some coherent whole if they do not all flow from a cohesive essence. That cohesive essence according to John is
agape. Judaism fundamentally identifies God as a singular cohesive essence of being: “Hear, O Israel, The-One-that-Is, our God, The-One-that-Is, is one.” To identify that Is-ness
as agape is a Christian identification. That is identified (as it also is with the Sufis, but not the rest of the Islamic world) as the unifying essence of God’s one-ness, whole-ness.
Or, to use another analogy: we all have multiple personalities; however, we do not all suffer from multiple personality disorder. That is because our personalities are integrated. For John (and I would say for Paul as well) the integrating essence of God’s various attributes (which are all subject to what you have called a language of accommodation) is
agape, from which they flow, and apart from which they cannot be understood.
It is not me who says such things as, “God is love,
but God is also just”—setting up an opposition that then needs be to integrated.
However, if you can offer me another “cohesifying” essence (with the scriptural reference), and an argument as to why that is essence, while
agape as aspect/attribute is subsumed under it, I’ll certainly take a look at it. It might well be more reasonable than
agape. (Frankly, I find the Stoic view, outlined below, as more reasonable; I am arguing here strictly within the context of Christian logic. Absent a definition of God's essence as
agape, neither the Christic sacrifice, nor the rest of it, seem to make much sense--and you are left with a rather abstruse collection of texts cobbled together into a rule-book that resembles those assembly instruction manuals that we all complain about.)
You’ll have to deal with John as well, of course, explaining how and why his rather direct statement needs to be contextualized by others, rather than it providing the context for them.
_______________________________________
For example, the Stoics would identify the essence of
theos (a non-personal term, for most of them anyway) as the cohering force of
logos, that which ensures coherence rather than chaos.
logos is also used as a term for the patterns that such coherence takes. This
logos is indifferent to any individual in the phenomenal order; its sole “concern” is for the harmonious working of the whole.
Our rationality is an expression of that
logos. (Or, as I sometimes put it, the grammar of our consciousness is itself a manifestation of the syntax of the cosmos.) The goal of the Stoic is to achieve
eudaimonia by using our reasoning faculty to live in accord with the
logos.
This is quite similar to Taoism. Any talk of “justice” here is in impersonal terms.
Is this the kind of view you’re getting at?