Is the God of Christianity an Impersonal Being?

[harvey1]

It might strike some people as completely beyond question that the loving Father of Christianity can be an impersonal God, but I'm not convinced that this is the case. For definition purposes, let's say a personal God is a God that is a person and who watches over the universe with the same care and mindfulness as a caring human mother would watch over her children. And, let's say an impersonal God is a God that is not a person and whose divine actions are generally impersonal with regard to God's interaction with the world. By impersonal I don't mean that God doesn't act in a personal manner, or that one cannot have a relationship with God. I mean that God should be considered as predominantly an impersonal being with any personal interaction as the exception to the rule.

My contention is that God of Christianity is actually impersonal like the second definition and not to be understood as personal in the first sense of the term. Is this a correct understanding of Christianity?

[harvey1]

What has this got to do with God not being a person?

Scripturally it doesn't have anything to do with it. However, logically it doesn't make any sense to me that God is composed of two people experiencing time, etc.. The question then becomes, is this what the scriptures suggest, and, in that case, I don't see any evidence for that. However, there is evidence that God is composed of three substances and is not two people.

[Tilia]

What has this got to do with God not being a person?

Scripturally it doesn't have anything to do with it. However, logically it doesn't make any sense to me that God is composed of two people

People are at least persons!

experiencing time, etc..

But that is nothing to do with 'non-person' either. These matters may be something to do with a 'trinity' or the role of time in the 'experience' of God, which are subjects of another thread or two.

[harvey1]

Amos 6:8 says 'The Lord God has sworn by himself.' The word used for 'himself' is 'nephesh', which means 'person' or other words, such as 'soul' or 'mind', that imply a person.

Nephesh is used widely in scriptures. For example:

And God created great whales, and every living creature [nephesh] that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

In the NAS this word is translated as follows:

any 1, anyone 2, anyone* 1, appetite 7, being 1, beings 3, body 1, breath 1, corpse 2, creature 6, creatures 3, dead 1, dead person 2, deadly 1, death 1, defenseless* 1, desire 12, desire* 2, discontented* 1, endure* 1, feelings 1, fierce* 2, greedy* 1, heart 5, heart's 2, herself 12, Himself 4, himself 19, human 1, human being 1, hunger 1, life 146, life* 1, lifeblood* 2, lives 34, living creature 1, longing* 1, man 4, man's 1, men* 2, mind 2, Myself 3, myself 2, number 1, ones 1, others 1, ourselves 3, own 1, passion* 1, people 2, people* 1, perfume* 1, person 68, person* 1, persons 19, slave 1, some 1, soul 238, soul's 1, souls 12, strength 1, themselves 6, thirst 1, throat 2, will 1, wish 1, wishes 1, yourself 11, yourselves 13

[Tilia]

Amos 6:8 says 'The Lord God has sworn by himself.' The word used for 'himself' is 'nephesh', which means 'person' or other words, such as 'soul' or 'mind', that imply a person.

In the NAS this word is translated as follows:

So if you pick out the ones that might apply in Amos 6:8 you might well have to concede even more evidence for God being a person. One person, too!

[harvey1]

People are at least persons!

Sure, but does it make any sense to say that two people lived forever in the past and then out of the blue decided to make a universe? It seems like a very anthropomorphic perspective of God.

But that is nothing to do with 'non-person' either. These matters may be something to do with a 'trinity' or the role of time in the 'experience' of God, which are subjects of another thread or two.

I disagree. If God is two people, then these two people must exist in time. In order for that to be a correct understanding of Christianity, this must be consistent with the biblical interpretation and it must make sense. What I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to say God is two people (i.e., they experience time from eternity past to eternity future), and therefore it is not a sound argument.

[harvey1]

So if you pick out the ones that might apply in Amos 6:8 you might well have to concede even more evidence for God being a person. One person, too!

Not really. If God is a substance, there's no reason to not interpret Amos 6:8 as saying the Lord has sworn by the Lord's own identity (or nephesh).

Let me clarify, when I say God is not a person, I specifically mean that God is not a temporal being who has linear thought processes and draws linear conclusions from those thought processes that occur in time as a human person would do.

[Tilia]

So if you pick out the ones that might apply in Amos 6:8 you might well have to concede even more evidence for God being a person. One person, too!

Not really. If God is a substance, there's no reason to not interpret Amos 6:8 as saying the Lord has sworn by the Lord's own identity (or nephesh).

'Identity' is not one of the options, though. The root meaning of 'nephesh' is 'something alive'; according to one of the best lexicons (Whittaker's Rev. BDB), God swears by His 'soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion 1a) that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man 1b) living being 1c) living being (with life in the blood) 1d) the man himself, self, person or individual 1e) seat of the appetites 1f) seat of emotions and passions 1g) activity of mind'. Take your pick. That seems to me to be pretty conclusive. (And the possessive pronoun is singular, too.)

Let me clarify, when I say God is not a person, I specifically mean that God is not a temporal being who has linear thought processes and draws linear conclusions from those thought processes that occur in time as a human person would do.

That's quite a qualification, just on the first point. What is a non-linear thought process, though? I think that the Christian God is the only person who actually 'thinks straight'!

[harvey1]

'Identity' is not one of the options, though. The root meaning of 'nephesh' is 'something alive';

Hebrew roots don't define the word anymore than roots define our words. However, we can tell by the usage that the word nephesh can refer to dead people, creatures, appetite, etc., so I see nothing out of place in saying that this is an identity relation. Afterall, the Hebrews didn't have the million or so words in the English language, so many of their words meant multiple things. We have to go based on usage and multiple contexts. You really don't mean to say that something dead is something alive, right?

That seems to me to be pretty conclusive. (And the possessive pronoun is singular, too.)

I don't argue that God is referred to in a personal way. Many things in the scriptures are referred to in a personal way (e.g., nations, animals), but that doesn't make those things people.

That's quite a qualification, just on the first point. What is a non-linear thought process, though? I think that the Christian God is the only person who actually 'thinks straight'!

Non-sequential thought processes are ones where the thoughts do not necessarily build on previous deductions that happened in the past. God might have concluded a truth from our future which affects how God reacts to a situation happening today. No person has a thought from the future and then uses that thought as a reason to act today.

[Tilia]

'Identity' is not one of the options, though. The root meaning of 'nephesh' is 'something alive';

Hebrew roots don't define the word anymore than roots define our words.

They do, actually, but even then English words can usually be traced back to roots quite recognisably, despite the hurly-burly of the history of the language. But in this instance the whole lexicon entry you seem to think of not the least importance.

However, we can tell by the usage that the word nephesh can refer to dead people, creatures, appetite, etc.,

So an entity that swears is dead? An entity that claims to be the creator is a creature? And do persons not have appetites?

That seems to me to be pretty conclusive. (And the possessive pronoun is singular, too.)

I don't argue that God is referred to in a personal way. Many things in the scriptures are referred to in a personal way (e.g., nations, animals), but that doesn't make those things people.

Nations are people, are they not? And, as I implied, if God is an animal the Bible is not worth our discussion.

That's quite a qualification, just on the first point. What is a non-linear thought process, though? I think that the Christian God is the only person who actually 'thinks straight'!

Non-sequential thought processes are ones where the thoughts do not necessarily build on previous deductions that happened in the past. God might have concluded a truth from our future which affects how God reacts to a situation happening today. No person has a thought from the future and then uses that thought as a reason to act today.

How would this make God less of a person?

[AlAyeti]

Parenthood is a good place to see the nature of God.

People want children absolutely knowing that they will demand free will. A parent will go ahead and raise that child (hopefully) teaching them right and wrong. "Showinng them the way."

And they follow or they don't.

The most possessive parent becomes the most intolerable to the child. The child will force their own freedom. The most neglectful parent is even more horrifying, producing mentally ill children. Check this out with a family Psychologist. If a child grows up without the proof of their beinng wanted, things rarely go well.

Yet people want to express their love (all things being right) and have children.

The only promise is the promise of life and life inherent and individual life. No parent can be their child but can be fulfilled in and through them. Think about the pride of a good parent when their children do wonderful (or even mundane) things.

This is my beloved child.

In them I am well pleased. Ever sat through a picture album of parental pride? (Think of the Bible as Jesus' album. He is there from cover to cover.)

Yet the relationship can never be broken as a family line.

God is a very personal Being. No more different than a parent.

think about it.