The Berean: John 6:44 | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (31).

[–] • 0 pt

There are really only two possible ways to attack this

Ah, laying out the best objections to your argument and then responding to them. Now it's really Thomistic.

God + existence > God

In the same way that ∞ + x > ∞, you could perhaps say. A creation manifesting the God Who just is offers new ways of seeing what always was, and new creatures to see Him. Something like infinity generating a finite series that, by this infinite power, can nonetheless relate to the infinity, thereby, paradoxically, generating "more" relations to the Infinite than there were before.

If God did not love, none of this could be possible, for it is His love of the self-manifesting finite that enables its being. And yet, before the finite, was only the infinite, and there is no change in the infinite. Thus God, to love the finite, must have loved before there was any finite. Which means He had to love Himself. Which is precisely what the Trinity illustrates and enables.

@ARM @KingOfWhiteAmerica

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

In the same way that ∞ + x > ∞, you could perhaps say. A creation manifesting the God Who just is offers new ways of seeing what always was, and new creatures to see Him. Something like infinity generating a finite series that, by this infinite power, can nonetheless relate to the infinity, thereby, paradoxically, generating "more" relations to the Infinite than there were before.

If God did not love, none of this could be possible, for it is His love of the self-manifesting finite that enables its being. And yet, before the finite, was only the infinite, and there is no change in the infinite. Thus God, to love the finite, must have loved before there was any finite. Which means He had to love Himself. Which is precisely what the Trinity illustrates and enables.

Great commentary.

I was thinking about the point you made in these last couple of replies regarding how Thomistic my two posts have been. You're right. That strikes me, because I'm not really very familiar with Aquinas. It makes me wonder, that if you begin from a point like the one where I did, if you can't avoid sounding Thomistic - just because Thomas already did it. Perhaps that kind of use of the intellect will always wind up sounding Thomistic.

I started reading a little bit of Jean Borella, and I was fascinated by how he describes the difference between intelligence and reasoning, and how this differentiates Platonic from Aristotelian/Thomistic thinking. He says that the latter are methodical and they serve revelation, but that Platonic understanding of the intelligence is its transcendent nature, that it effectively ascends the divine hierarchy and parallels the truly gnostic part of Christianity. That's not to discount either of them. They're both massively important for their own reasons.

I'd say that for the most part, the Platonic has factored far more into my thinking than the Thomistic style has, but it was interesting to approach arguing from that standpoint. I definitely see Borella's point, which is that it serves revelation/gnosis, but cannot itself offer that. Thomism is fantastic for analysis, and for getting us to build really strong rational structures that point to God, but the gnostic aspect is necessary to get to the Christian God, I think. It's pure intellect, as opposed to reasoning, that reaches God.

>In the same way that ∞ + x > ∞, you could perhaps say. A creation manifesting the God Who just is offers new ways of seeing what always was, and new creatures to see Him. Something like infinity generating a finite series that, by this infinite power, can nonetheless relate to the infinity, thereby, paradoxically, generating "more" relations to the Infinite than there were before. >If God did not love, none of this could be possible, for it is His love of the self-manifesting finite that enables its being. And yet, before the finite, was only the infinite, and there is no change in the infinite. Thus God, to love the finite, must have loved before there was any finite. Which means He had to love Himself. Which is precisely what the Trinity illustrates and enables. Great commentary. I was thinking about the point you made in these last couple of replies regarding how Thomistic my two posts have been. You're right. That strikes me, because I'm not really very familiar with Aquinas. It makes me wonder, that if you begin from a point like the one where I did, if you *can't avoid* sounding Thomistic - just because Thomas already did it. Perhaps that kind of use of the intellect will always wind up sounding Thomistic. I started reading a little bit of Jean Borella, and I was fascinated by how he describes the difference between intelligence and reasoning, and how this differentiates Platonic from Aristotelian/Thomistic thinking. He says that the latter are methodical and they *serve* revelation, but that Platonic understanding of the intelligence is its transcendent nature, that it effectively ascends the divine hierarchy and parallels the truly *gnostic* part of Christianity. That's not to discount either of them. They're both massively important for their own reasons. I'd say that for the most part, the Platonic has factored far more into my thinking than the Thomistic style has, but it was interesting to approach arguing from that standpoint. I definitely see Borella's point, which is that it *serves* revelation/gnosis, but cannot itself offer that. Thomism is fantastic for analysis, and for getting us to build really strong rational structures that point to God, but the gnostic aspect is necessary to get to the Christian God, I think. It's *pure intellect*, as opposed to reasoning, that reaches God.

parent
link