God's creativity

God is unimaginably creative.

John 1, Colossians 1, and other passages indicate that God the Son was and is the chief agent in creation, and in sustaining it.

So what did God create?

1. Substance (including energy, which is a type of substance – e = mc²).

Matter and energy are creations of God. He is outside of His created universe, and made it come to be from nothing. However, He can and does enter it, as shown in the miracles of the Old Testament, the Incarnation of God the Son, and the presence of God the Holy Spirit. Ken Schenck, in this post, points out that God created the nothing, too. It wouldn't have been there without God.

It is possible that all the types of sub-atomic particles, or even each and every such particle, all the elements, all the types of heavenly bodies, the earth itself, and the kinds of living things, were brought into being by individual creative acts. It is also possible that God’s planning was so extensive and complete that He created matter so that most or all of these things emerged, over time, as a result of the Big Bang. Either way shows God’s limitless intelligence and creativity, (See here for information on the suitability of sub-atomic particles for the existence of the universe.) and we don’t need to know which of these (or both) has been true.

Satan probably has no power to create any kind of substance, but he can make use of created things.

2. Time/Eternity
Substance has been created in time, which is another of God's creations. Since that is true, God is not in time, but outside of it, in eternity -- God can experience the past, present and future. Or, perhaps, God created eternity, too. All of the entities shown in the graphic play out in time, and in eternity. I'm not clear as to whether eternity is just time stretched out infinitely into the past and the future, or whether time somehow exists in eternity, and it doesn't matter what I think. I'll leave that question to God.

Satan apparently existed before the creation of substance, but probably not eternally into the past. Humans, and satan and other beings are going to exist eternally into the future.

3. Beauty

All beauty, imagined* or existent, of pattern, appearance, sound, and form, either:

was created by God;

is a natural emergence from what God created;

is based on what God brought forth;

or is possible because He gave humans the ability to be sub-creators.

(J. R. R. Tolkien, who was a Christian, used the word sub-creation about the fantastic worlds created by himself and others.)

*“Imagined,” because, for example, Beethoven was so deaf by the time his great Ninth Symphony was performed that he could not hear it, and had not heard it, except in his head, while he was composing it. Similar processes of imagination occur during writing, painting, and other creative arts, and also in the sciences, even in sports. Newton imagined his Law of Universal Gravitation – he didn’t develop this from experiments. That Law’s simplicity is one of many scientific phenomena that scientists sometimes say possess beauty, because of their simplicity (at least to the scientists!) and explanatory power:
F = (g x m₁ x m₂)/r²
The scientific search for patterns in elementary particles, and for broadly applicable formulas and laws (such as the so-called theory of everything, or the “God particle”) is motivated by a belief that there is an underlying pattern and beauty in the way things are. Einstein, who was not a believer in a personal God, sometimes spoke as if there was a God who had arranged things in the way that they were, understandable, describable, and relatively simple.

Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate, said: “What is it about nature that lets this happen, that it is possible to guess from one part what the rest is going to do? That is an unscientific question: I do not know how to answer it, and therefore I am going to give an unscientific answer. I think it is because nature has a simplicity and therefore a great beauty.” “Seeking New Laws,” pp. 143-167, in Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, New York: Modern Library, 1994. Quote is from p. 167. I have read most of Feynman's popular writing, and seen no evidence that he believed in God at all.

Naismith imagined a game involving tossing a ball into peach baskets.

Satan probably has no power to create beauty of any kind, although he can mimic God’s good creation, and can use beauty as an evil force. (Pornography, for example.) Perhaps Satan, as an angel, had creative powers that humans don’t. We don’t know. Satan apparently can imagine events that have not happened yet, or that might never happen.

4. Relationship

The power to form relationships with other sentient, responsive beings is possible because God made it so.

A human who is incapable of establishing relationships with others, or who does not want to do so, is abnormal. Humans are constructed so that we form and maintain relationships with others, from birth to death.

God also desires relationships. The Three Persons of the Trinity apparently have a relationship with one another. God wants to have a relationship with us. This is not possible, or not nearly fully possible, unless the sin problem is fixed. God loves us so much that He took care of the sin problem for us – we couldn’t do that. In the life of Christ, in 1 Corinthians 13, and elsewhere, the proper foundation for relationships is laid out. It is unselfish, Christ-like love. (Agape love.) Humans, and, to some extent, animals, have some capacity to communicate, to empathize, to imagine how to increase the well-being of others, and to do so. These all contribute to the ability to form relationships. God wants us to use this ability to bring others to a relationship with Him.

Satan is incapable of forming a proper relationship with anyone. We aren’t, either, without accepting Christ’s sacrifice for sin, and following His Lordship and example.

5. Joy

God is responsible for joy. We can, and should, be joyful in comprehending and experiencing beauty and relationship, even substance. God made humor and laughter possible. We should joy in contemplating God’s creativity and goodness. “Joyful, joyful, we adore Thee” (based on Beethoven's Ninth Symphony) is found in many hymnals.

Satan has lost any capacity for joy that he had originally, and wants to drive joy out of the world.

6. Holiness

Holiness is the opposite of evil and sin. Evil and sin are the absence of holiness. God is holy, and good, and His creation started out that way. He wants us to be holy, and totally good, too, and will eventually transform created things so that they, too, are finally and eternally good. Because God is holy and good, He cannot abide sin. Our relationship with Him should be such that we stop sinning, or at least do it less frequently, and become more and more holy – more and more living a life for God, and others, and less and less living for ourselves.

Satan is unholiness personified. Fallen, unredeemed humans are also unholiness personified.

7. Wisdom

Wisdom is “The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.” (The Free Dictionary). In other words, to have wisdom is to act correctly on the things you know. God allows us to have knowledge, to know things, but merely knowing things is not the same thing as wisdom. Children know a lot, but they are often not wise. Presumably Satan also knows a lot, but he has unwisely rejected God’s authority.

 
Thanks for reading, and thanks to my wife for suggestions.

This is the version of November 1, 2014, somewhat modified from previous versions.

Intimacy with God

The Free Dictionary has this as one definition of intimacy: “a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship with another person or group.” In our culture, intimacy often has a sexual connotation, but that’s not necessary. In God’s plan, a sexual relationship will be accompanied by the rest of intimacy, and the other parts will be at least as important as the sexual relationship. If they aren't, the sexual relationship won't last very long.

Intimacy is closely related to two kinds of love. In  Greek, they are phileo and agape -- love for a friend, and unselfish, Christ-like love. We can be intimate, or seek intimacy, with a spouse, prospective spouse, or with a friend.

As an example for us, The Trinity is/are intimate with each other:

John 8:29 He who sent me is with me. The Father hasn’t left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

1 Corinthians 2:10b For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11b Even so, no one knows the things of God, except God’s Spirit. (Bible quotations from the World English Bible, public domain)

. . . There is only one God in three persons. Each person is God, whole and entire . . . The whole work of creation and grace is a single operation common to all three divine persons, who at the same time operate according to their unique properties, so that all things are from the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. The three persons are co-equal, [and] co-eternal . . . (From the Wikipedia)

We should be intimate with God:

John 15:4 Remain in me, and I in you. As the branch can’t bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you, unless you remain in me. 5 I am the vine. You are the branches. He who remains in me, and I in him, the same bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If a man doesn’t remain in me, he is thrown out as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If you remain in me, and my words remain in you, you will ask whatever you desire, and it will be done for you.

Based on these verses, and the whole of the Bible, which, rather than being about our search for God, is about God's search for us, God deeply desires to have an intimate relationship with us.

How to be intimate with another person? I will do these things: (add "the other." at the end of each line.)

want to associate with

share interests with

communicate with

try to please

build up the reputation of

think about

spend time alone with

treasure messages from

learn about

imitate

be grateful to

accept correction from

enjoy even repetitive gestures or verbal communications from

We can, and should, have each of these same feelings, actions, and desires toward God. God help me to feel, act, and desire such intimacy.

Thanks for reading. Here's a related post, on loving God.

"Father" differs in frequency in the gospels

I recently did a search for occurrences of the word, "father," in the Bible. I wasn't looking for it, but was struck by the number of times it was used in each of the four gospels.

Here's a link to the results of that search, using the English Standard Version.

The frequencies in the four gospels are these:

in Matthew: 70. 15 of these are in the genealogies at the beginning of Matthew. 15 are in the Sermon on the Mount, where something like "your Father which is in heaven" occurs frequently. There are 40 more references. It seems clear that Matthew wanted his readers to think of Christ (and themselves) in relationship to God the Father.

in Mark: 17. Most of these refer to an earthly father, not to God the Father.

in Luke: 41. 9 of these are from the parable of the Prodigal Son. Roughly half of the rest relate to God the Father.

in John: 108! I found that number to be astounding, especially considering that John doesn't have genealogies, or the parable of the Prodigal Son. Most of the statements are about God the Father. I suppose that the most significant is John 10:10, where Jesus said that He and the Father were one.

The frequent use, especially in John, indicates that Jesus, and the gospel writers, believed that the idea of a relationship with God the Father, through the Son, was important.

Thanks for reading. Read the gospels.

Life is short

James 4:14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. (ESV. See here for ESV copyright information.)

My mother lived over 99 years. But that was a short time, measured against eternity.

I have mused a lot on many things in the past couple of weeks. One of those things is the passing of time. One of our nephews, and his wife, put together a slide show, which was available to visitors at the funeral home. It's a good job, and I'm glad they put it together. But it shows that time passes, and we can't bring it back. There were photos of ancestors of mine that died before I was born. I never knew them.

One photo that particularly interested me was one of the brother next in age to me, with me, messing around on the rocks in a stream near where we once lived. I don't remember the occasion, and I doubt if my brother does, either. But it looks like we were having fun, and I'm sure that we were, some six plus decades ago. I can't go back there. I'm not sure I can find the place, I can't play on rocks quite as well as I used to, and if I do find it and go back, most likely my brother won't be there with me. That experience is gone.

There was a lot of stuff in the old house. We took some of it, and others did, too. That's fine. Some of these things are nice to have, some may be valuable, some bring back memories. But none of that really matters. Sooner or later it will all be forgotten and worthless, or just lost. Things don't last, any more than experiences do. A lot of that stuff is gone, and the rest will be, eventually.

I was happy that a friend of ours came to the funeral. I hadn't seen her for fifteen years, since my Dad's funeral. Being able to talk with her reminded me that relationships are very important, more important than experiences. I should have gone to the funerals of her parents. My relationships with my extended family, with friends, and, above all, with Christ, are the only things that really matter.

Thanks for reading.

The Shack by William P. Young

Let's put it this way. No less than 1,811 people have written reviews of William P. Young's The Shack: A Novel (Windblown, 1997) for Amazon.com, as of November 13, 2008. It has been a New York Times best-seller, and probably still is. In a sentence, the book is about a hurting man's dialogue with God. The book has its own web site. There is, of course, a Wikipedia article about the book. So, in spite of the topic, or because of it, it's obviously pretty popular. Why? Is the popularity deserved?

The Amazon review page does something helpful, namely it shows the most critical, and the most laudatory reviews at the top, so you can read them, if you wish.

My own take is this: Even though the book is highly theological, for a novel, if you go to a novel for definitive guidance on theology, you will get what you deserve. It's a story! A fictional story. I believe that this particular story contains quite a bit of truth, useful truth, but it is fiction. For guidance in theology, go to the Bible, and the historic teachings of the church.

The theological topic that I found most often in the book is the doctrine of the Trinity. God is one being, but also three beings. I don't understand this. I doubt if William P. Young understands it completely. I doubt if humans can understand this doctrine more than superficially. I believe it, because the Bible teaches it, and because it is certainly one of the most fundamental and historic Christian doctrines. See here for my post on "What Christians Believe," which includes the text of the Nicene Creed. That Creed sets forth a belief in the Trinity, without exactly clarifying it.

Even if Young doesn't set forth a clear, explicit theology of the Trinity, I did find the book helpful. How? The Shack portrays the three persons of the Godhead as individual, yet in unselfish love with each other, and in agreement with each other. In other words, they have a relationship. They love each other, they communicate, they share. The book implies that this relationship between the persons of the Godhead is meant to show us what relationships should be like, and give us guidance about what our relationship with God should be:
"The Bible doesn't teach you to follow rules. It is a picture of Jesus. While words may tell you what God is like and even what he may want from you, you cannot do any of it on your own. Life and living is in him and in no other. My goodness, you didn't think you could live the righteousness of God on your own, did you?
. . . "It is true that relationships are a lot messier than rules, but rules will never give you answers to the deep questions of the heart and they will never love you."
. . . "Mackenzie, religion is about having the right answers, and some of the answers are right. But I am about the process that takes you to the living answer and once you get to him, he will change you from inside." (197-8)

There is more in the book, and, of course, there are things that aren't in it. My wife asked me (She is in the process of reading it) if it mentions the Bible at all. No, it doesn't.

I don't intend to give away the plot, other than to say (which is obvious pretty early on) that most of it is a dream, or a vision. But I will say that another matter which may give some readers pause is that two of the three persons of the Trinity (not Christ) are presented as females. Well, why not? God has, indeed, historically and Biblically been presented as male. That means something, for sure. But I don't see any problem with presenting God as female in fiction. I would guess (many others have also done so) that God is not exactly sexual. He transcends sexuality in ways we cannot understand. The question of God's appearance as female, in part, is discussed in the book.

There are other topics, such as a discussion of God's creation, and science as the way of learning about that, and a discussion of free will, which I found interesting. I may post a bit on those topics later. There is a lot implied about faith and trust in God.

Much of the book is conversation. If that turns you off, you'd better not read this one.

I found the book to be well-written, and well worth reading, and thank the individual who asked me my opinion of it, which led to that reading.

Thank you for reading this.

P. S. As of March 6, 2017, I have not seen the movie which is based on this book, and do not plan to. The rest of this post has not been changed from November 15, 2008.