Note: Staging folder was not committed for this batch — files went straight to final locations. This REVIEW.md is recovered verbatim from session history (
6eb120ab). Process gap now closed by ADR-0009 amendment.
Batch Review — csg-01-02
Source: resources/CSG/Book01/csg-01-02-god-and-the-work-of-creation.md
Sections covered: 1.1–1.2, 2.1–2.2, 3.1–3.2, 4.1–4.2, 5.1–5.5
Date: 2026-05-20
Notes proposed (7)
| File | Claim summary |
|---|---|
csg-creation-as-total-self-investment.md | God’s creation was kenotic outpouring, not effortless fiat |
csg-true-love-grows-by-investment.md | True love expands with investment; return exceeds input |
csg-love-not-life-is-basis-of-creation.md | Love is ontologically prior to life |
csg-god-lacks-love-organ.md | God has no love organ; humans possess what God lacks |
csg-parents-as-second-creators.md | Parenthood raises the couple to God’s position as creator |
csg-four-position-foundation-fulfills-creation.md | Four-position foundation = completed purpose of creation |
csg-nature-as-textbook-of-love.md | Pair system in nature is a divine curriculum for love |
No new tags requested. All tags drawn from closed registry.
Notes NOT extracted (rationale):
- Section 3.1 (God created Adam as His body) — covered by existing
csg-god-needs-body-via-adam-and-eveandcsg-adam-and-eve-as-god-incarnatefrom batch csg-01-01. No new atomic claim. - Sections 5.2, 5.4, 5.5 — descriptive/hortatory rather than doctrinal claims; no extractable atomic that isn’t already covered.
Open questions raised
-
[interesting]
csg-true-love-grows-by-investment— Is the “100 units → 120 return” claim metaphorical or a literal assertion about love’s metaphysics? If literal, what is the ontological mechanism? Triggered by: 237-124, 237-127 (conflicting framings in same section). -
[interesting]
csg-god-lacks-love-organ— If God lacks a love organ, and the Fall prevented Adam and Eve from becoming His body, has God been unable to experience embodied love for all of history? Is there a restoration claim that addresses this directly? Triggered by: 206-125 read alongside the Fall narrative. -
[minor]
csg-love-not-life-is-basis-of-creation— SMM says “life began because love started budding in God’s heart.” What was the trigger for love to bud? Does this introduce a temporal sequence within the eternal God that classical theism would reject? Triggered by: 57-21, 38-152.
Proposed threads
The following tag cluster now has 5+ atomics with no thread:
principle-of-creation+love:csg-god-cannot-love-without-a-partner,csg-creation-as-total-self-investment,csg-true-love-grows-by-investment,csg-love-not-life-is-basis-of-creation,csg-god-lacks-love-organ,csg-nature-as-textbook-of-love
Proposed thread: “Why God Had No Choice But to Create” — Synthesizes the chain: love requires a partner → creation was total self-investment → love’s economics make the investment rational → nature was designed to mature the partner. Seed atomics: all six above. Would need a counter from classical theism (creatio ex nihilo, divine aseity) and a response distinguishing SMM’s relational ontology from dependency claims.
Stale wrestling
(None tracked yet — no threads exist from prior batches.)