Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As hard to believe as it may be, God's suspension of judgement over the course of events which led to Adam and the woman's exile from the Garden is a picture perfect and dichotomous view of God's love, both personal and impersonal.

"dichotomous view"

You use such big words! 😲

Care to explain?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Neither are retracted; I simply clarified the statements.

God's love toward those without His perfect righteousness (temporarily) is known as His impersonal love--- that which is based upon His character and integrity, without any dependence upon the creature otherwise.

A great example of this is the exile in the Garden.
Huh?
As hard to believe as ...[text shortened]... d--- just like the man and the woman--- on the basis of their possession of God's righteousness.

Okay, so you claim God has personal love for other persons with equal (perfect) righteousness as Himself and "impersonal" love for other persons with inferior qualities. Sounds like a terminological train wreck to say God has "impersonal" love for other persons; one would think that is just interpersonal love which is also personal love, but whatever. I think you are just jumping through terminological hoops here to avoid saying that God has engrossing self-love. It probably sounds better in your own head to say that God has "personal" love; but the fact is, the only "personal" love He displays is towards Himself.

At any rate, I don't care about the wordsmithing. I care about that actual substance, and your account contradicts sonship's account given in the OP. Your account holds that God has love towards inferior creatures like sonship; sonship's account entails that is not really the case, that God only loves "sonship" to the extent that God Himself is instantiated in "sonship" and that sonship in and of himself is really only good for firewood.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Okay, so you claim God has personal love for other persons with equal (perfect) righteousness as Himself and "impersonal" love for other persons with inferior qualities. Sounds like a terminological train wreck to say God has "impersonal" love for other persons; one would think that is just interpersonal love which is also personal love, but whatever. I ...[text shortened]... s instantiated in "sonship" and that sonship in and of himself is really only good for firewood.

Sounds like a terminological train wreck to say God has "impersonal" love for other persons; one would think that is just interpersonal love which is also personal love, but whatever.
Either you don't know what the phrase 'interpersonal love' means, or you are still muddled on the concept of impersonal love.

Or possibly, both.

Interpersonal love is dependent upon some common bond between two or more people, some association they have in common. It is absolutely required for them to be like-minded on at least a few planes.

Impersonal love is the professional conduct toward another who is not like the one extending it; it is dependent upon the integrity of the latter, not the former.

There are no terminological hoops to either jump through or avoid. If you don't understand it, you simply don't understand it. I attempted to give you another example of the distinctions by citing a parent's love toward their child, but this apparently was lost on you.

It is foreign to think of something/someone so beautiful, so good as to defy our ability to comprehend it, but God is that thing. God is that One who fills and overflows our furthest expectations of beauty, of truth, of purity. We are wrong when we don't worship Him... it is wrong to not be wholly and totally engrossed in Him.

I know you seek truth, even if I don't agree (or maybe better, can't compete) with your method of finding it. I might not have all the words to say, LJ, but I have found the thing for which you seek.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Impersonal love is the professional conduct toward another who is not like the one extending it;

Bringing professionalism into the love game sounds like prostitution to me.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Sounds like a terminological train wreck to say God has "impersonal" love for other persons; one would think that is just interpersonal love which is also personal love, but whatever.
Either you don't know what the phrase 'interpersonal love' means, or you are still muddled on the concept of impersonal love.

Or possibly, both.

Interpersonal ...[text shortened]... g it. I might not have all the words to say, LJ, but I have found the thing for which you seek.[/b]

It is foreign to think of something/someone so beautiful, so good as to defy our ability to comprehend it, but God is that thing.

If you simply cannot comprehend X, then how is it that you could be justified in predicating properties unto X, such as goodness or beauty; and how is it you could be justified in some program that putatively describes the types of love X has for other things; etc, etc. Well, now it is painfully clear why you have been making so little sense and contradicting yourself at just about each turn.

Look, if you believe in the existence of some entity that simply defies your comprehension, then okay (though it is debatable in that case whether or not "God exists" is even a cognitively meaningful statement; and, supposing it is, it is not clear how in the world you could be justified in believing it). But at least be consistent!!! If 'God' is an entity that defies your comprehension, then quit pretending like you are justified in making claims that predicate properties unto God. You're basically stuck with the statement "God exists" and then you basically can consistently say no more about the subject (since at least existence is not a predicate).

Originally posted by LemonJello

It is foreign to think of something/someone so beautiful, so good as to defy our ability to comprehend it, but God is that thing.

If you simply cannot comprehend X, then how is it that you could be justified in predicating properties unto X, such as goodness or beauty; and how is it you could be justified in some program that putatively ...[text shortened]... ly can consistently say no more about the subject (since at least existence is not a predicate).

I fail to see what you are bothered by. There are many things in life which we can experience and enjoy which we do not fully comprehend.

Like a ham sandwich for starters.

Anyway, man may have fellowship with God, communion with God, and mutual love with God and be short of total comprehension of God.

We may have adequate comprehension of God to enjoy Him.
This is like we can have adequate comprehension of marriage to enjoy marriage.

We may also grow in comprehension of that which we enjoy.
We may have a level of comprehension today that will depend tomorrow and on into the future.

Actually we can also have some amount of misunderstanding about something and still experience and enjoy the matter.

If you have had children, you know that often they misunderstood you. Yet they still enjoyed your parenthood and affection.

Originally posted by sonship
I fail to see what you are bothered by. There are many things in life which we can experience and enjoy which we do not fully comprehend.

Like a ham sandwich for starters.

Anyway, man may have fellowship with God, communion with God, and mutual love with God and be short of total comprehension of God.

We may have adequate comprehension of God ...[text shortened]... ou know that often they misunderstood you. Yet they still enjoyed your parenthood and affection.

No, no ... not partially comprehend, but cannot comprehend.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, no ... not partially comprehend, but cannot comprehend.

Indeed... I'm also wondering what it is about ham sandwiches that sonship finds so incomprehensible...

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, no ... not partially comprehend, but cannot comprehend.

I made a typo. "depend" should have read "deepen."

We do comprehend God.
We do have some comprehension of God or else we would not be talking about God.

You comprehend something of God and don't like the thought.
An ultimate Governor or highest authority you comprehend in some measure, and you don't like the concept.

Suppose you changed though like some of us have?
Then you begin perhaps to open your life and heart up to God and enjoy His presence.

I would say that you would comprehend God better. But fully comprehend? No, you nor I would fully comprehend.

Jesus spoke of no one fully knowing that Father or the Son except by some mercy from God.

"All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one fully knows the Son except the Father; neither does anyone fully know the Father except the Son and him to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." (John 11:27)

We can come to a deeper knowing of the Father and the Son if we come hungry for this, and as coming to a living Person.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Indeed... I'm also wondering what it is about ham sandwiches that sonship finds so incomprehensible...

Why is it hard to understand completely?

Your next post can enumerate for us exhaustively ALL the chemical components of a ham sandwich. You may go on to describe each molecule of those chemical components and what and where each one acts on the physical body and what it does.

That's so simple for you you should be able to whip it off easily. Its only ham, mayonnaise, bread, and maybe a tomato.

Show us that your knowledge of the chemistry and physics of digestion are complete with nothing lacking in your understanding.

And, mmmmm, save a half of the sandwich for one of us to enjoy.

Originally posted by sonship
I made a typo. "depend" should have read "deepen."

We do comprehend God.
We do have some comprehension of God or else we would not be talking about God.

You comprehend something of God and don't like the thought.
An ultimate Governor or highest authority you comprehend in some measure, and you don't like the concept.

Suppose you changed ...[text shortened]... knowing of the Father and the Son if we come hungry for this, and as coming to a living Person.

Oh, right. I made the mistake of thinking that you actually intended to respond to LemonJello because you quoted his post. But, as usual, we're back to you liking the sound of your own voice.

Originally posted by sonship
Why is it hard to understand completely?

Your next post can enumerate for us exhaustively ALL the chemical components of a ham sandwich. You may go on to describe each molecule of those chemical components and what and where each one acts on the physical body and what it does.

That's so simple for you you should be able to whip it off easily. Its o ...[text shortened]... king in your understanding.

And, mmmmm, save a half of the sandwich for one of us to enjoy.

I don't think you are using the same meaning of the word comprehend as I am...
Or you know, normal people do.

I can comprehend how chess works without needing to know every possible
combination of moves or the precise chemical make up of the pieces.

I could go and look up the molecular formulas for most of the ingredients of a ham
sandwich. Some I can't because it includes things like DNA, which will be unique to
the particular pig, plus the bacteria in it ect.

But that doesn't mean I don't comprehend, or can't comprehend a ham sandwich.


Also, how this conversation kicked off was you said ...

It is foreign to think of something/someone so beautiful, so good as to defy our
ability to comprehend it, but God is that thing.

Or in other words you didn't say we don't currently fully comprehend it.
What you said was it was incomprehensible and that it's impossible to comprehend it.


In which case, as LemmonJello rightly asked... If it's impossible to comprehend, how do
you then go on to make claims about it?

Originally posted by sonship
We do have some comprehension of God or else we would not be talking about God.

We can talk about lots of things without comprehension about
them at all! We can speculate but that is all.

For instance I am sure you have written about the FSM.
How much do you comprehend about him?
(Or Santa or leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy or the Bogey Man or ....)

Originally posted by LemonJello

It is foreign to think of something/someone so beautiful, so good as to defy our ability to comprehend it, but God is that thing.

If you simply cannot comprehend X, then how is it that you could be justified in predicating properties unto X, such as goodness or beauty; and how is it you could be justified in some program that putatively ...[text shortened]... ly can consistently say no more about the subject (since at least existence is not a predicate).

The use of comprehend shouldn't confuse you, as you already understand I am referring to man's inability to completely take it all in, not a failure to understand any of aspect at all. The reason I know that you know this to be the case is because I have mentioned at least a few aspects of God's characteristics, which means something of Him can known even if not fully.

So either I am completely abandoned to meaningless, contradictory gibberish, or I am discussing elements of God's characteristics which lap the shore of our consciousness while promising far more than ever make it to the beach.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't think you are using the same meaning of the word comprehend as I am...
Or you know, normal people do.

I can comprehend how chess works without needing to know every possible
combination of moves or the precise chemical make up of the pieces.

I could go and look up the molecular formulas for most of the ingredients of a ham
sandwich. S ...[text shortened]... htly asked... If it's impossible to comprehend, how do
you then go on to make claims about it?

I can comprehend how chess works without needing to know every possible
combination of moves or the precise chemical make up of the pieces.
With respect to the number of moves possible, it is possible for you mentally ascend to the fact that there are 318,979,564,000 combinations available in the first four moves of the game, but you're only approximating a massive number and nowhere near completely taking in all of those combinations--- you're just acknowledging the massiveness of that number.