Another way to look at 'parts'

[inquisitiveguy]

Hello tdc,
Fair enough. That seems to be a slightly different way to look at things. I really don't have a problem with that. In your opinion though, is there a problem with believing God has parts? If so, why?

I think I understand your perception thought but a question that I don't think that is covered by it. Without God having parts, how can an INFINITE God fit in a finite vessel?

God bless

[tdc]

Originally Posted by inquisitiveguy

Hello tdc,
Fair enough. That seems to be a slightly different way to look at things. I really don't have a problem with that. In your opinion though, is there a problem with believing God has parts? If so, why?

I think I understand your perception thought but a question that I don't think that is covered by it. Without God having parts, how can an INFINITE God fit in a finite vessel?

God bless

In answer to your second thought, how can an INFINITE God fit in a finite vessel(?), I would say that we tend to think of the infinite as inherently possessing finite, measurable qualities. God doesn't seem to be made up of material having mass. God may be infinite, but that does not mean He is infinitely composed of material mass. God is a spirit, spirits do not take up physical space. In the same breath, God is omnipresent at the same time as having His fullness in many Christians simultaneously. Being infinite and eternal, God can fill all space and time, while still manifesting himself in a single, particular place and time.

This subject confusing and gives me a headache >.<. lol. It is probably better to think of the fullness of God as qualities embodied in spirit rather than something contained in a small space. Think of someone who has a regular sized brain, but reads 1000 books, and can bring to memory any part of that book at any time. His head is simply not big enough to hold that much physical material, the space is just to small. None the less, every page of the each book is within his mind in the incorporeal or uncarnate form of information.

As to the first question you posed, it is difficult to say without further thought, or offending some people. While imo, thinking of God as having levels, or depths as far as our understanding of him, I can see no harm.

If you are referring to parts as in separate "personalities", I think it becomes a debate in theology between Trinity and Oneness. As personalities go, I am personally Oneness and understand God to have manifested Himself in different forms for different proposes, but each manifestation, imo, did not have a separate identity as such.

[inquisitiveguy]

Hello tdc,

In answer to your second thought, how can an INFINITE God fit in a finite vessel(?), I would say that we tend to think of the infinite as inherently possessing finite, measurable qualities.

I would agree. Take the number pi and space-time for examples.

God doesn't seem to be made up of material having mass.

True.

God is a spirit, spirits do not take up physical space. In the same breath, God is omnipresent at the same time as having His fullness in many Christians simultaneously. Being infinite and eternal, God can fill all space and time, while still manifesting himself in a single, particular place and time.

I don't think that HE is physically there, but HE is there. On a higher level than the physical perhaps?

This subject confusing and gives me a headache

It can. It is way outside the norm and I give you thanks for continuing this conversation.

It is probably better to think of the fullness of God as qualities embodied in spirit rather than something contained in a small space. Think of someone who has a regular sized brain, but reads 1000 books, and can bring to memory any part of that book at any time. His head is simply not big enough to hold that much physical material, the space is just to small. None the less, every page of the each book is within his mind in the incorporeal or uncarnate form of information.

So to see if I'm understanding you correctly. The HS would be like all christians reading the same 1000 books and knowing them front to back? You still would have my 'memory' of said books and your 'memory' of said books. Still two 'parts' in virtue of their locations.

As to the first question you posed, it is difficult to say without further thought, or offending some people. While imo, thinking of God as having levels, or depths as far as our understanding of him, I can see no harm.

Then please think on . If they're offended by us thinking and talking about God then that is their problem and not ours. Thank you for your 'imo'.

If you are referring to parts as in separate "personalities", I think it becomes a debate in theology between Trinity and Oneness. As personalities go, I am personally Oneness and understand God to have manifested Himself in different forms for different proposes, but each manifestation, imo, did not have a separate identity as such.

If the personality of the Son is within the PERSONALITY of the Father I don't see how trinitiarians would like it. To them, they are co-equal but to my understanding the Son is within the Father - not truly and completely equal. Think of a human hand being 'in' a human person. Ontologically they are both human but the hand receives its identity only as part of the person. I don't have a problem with your view of God because it leads to the correct conclusions (namely baptism in Jesus' name). I believe mine is accepted though unorthodox because it leads to the same conclusions - just a different route.

God bless