Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Working Out Our Salvation


Recommended Posts

MFBukowski and I have had conversations in the past hereabouts on the subject of JSJr's and Mormonism's unique ability to anticipate modern philosophical thought.  The Late XVIIIth-Early XIXth Century poet, playwright, and thinker Schiller advised his hypothetical philosopher king to pursue through aesthetics the worthy goal of transcending matter and mind in order to become a creator through play [Spieltrieb].  JSJr taught that we are, at our most fundamental, both in our prior life, our present life, and in our life to come, demiurgical beings.  We once helped to create the world we now live in.  We seek to continue on to be creators with and for G-d in the hereafter.  We are to create in partnership with G-d, as He communicates TRVTH in our hearts and in our minds, an abundant life here.

It is the creation of that abundant life that I wish to explore in this thread, and all are welcome to offer what they wish, so long as it's on topic.

It occurred to me reading Alma 34:37, which is connected to and of a kind with Philippians 2:12-13, that "working out our salvation" is just another way of saying we are to create that abundant life here.

Now, yes, there's the often confusing "fear and trembling" [phobos kai tromos] which suggests the attitude we should bring to the work of our creation of our lives.  Let's get this at least partway out of our way, however.  That is a paraphrase of Psalm 2:11, which states: "Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling."  Cf.  Psalms 55:5.

The "fear" in the Hebrew [which is also translated in the Septuagint as phobos], is more in the nature of "respect" and "awe," rather than terror, and the way that "trembling" is presented in the Psalm is likewise not to be understood as "shaking in fear" as used, but rather in excitement and joy.  We are thus to "work out our salvation" with respect for G-d, standing in awe of Him, but with great joy to the point of trembling.

As MFB never tires of pointing out, our ability to perceive the world around us, the phenomena we encounter and, to a certain extent, even ourselves [please keep Freud out of this], depends upon our senses communicating data to our minds and hearts.  We can know nothing except as filtered through our perceptions and colored by our experiences.  Thus we in a sense create the world by taking in our perceptions of it, making sense of those perceptions by employing our native abilities and our experience.  Our salvation, I argue, we create "work out" in the same way.  The key to making our lives abundant, however, is in that Hebrew/Greek idiom phobos kai tromos.  Only by having a correct attitude towards G-d, a correct conception of Him and relationship with Him, can we hope to live in abundant joy to the point of dancing naked on the beach, having created a world where such joy is an everyday thing.

Men are, after all, that they might have joy.

Have at it!

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Only by having a correct attitude towards G-d, a correct conception of Him and relationship with Him, can we hope to live in abundant joy to the point of dancing naked on the beach, having created a world where such joy is an everyday thing.

I am getting better at the correct conception of Him, the relationship is strained never had much luck with earthly father types seems to have a big effect on the Father in Heaven type. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, USU78 said:

We can know nothing except as filtered through our perceptions and colored by our experiences.  Thus we in a sense create the world by taking in our perceptions of it, making sense of those perceptions by employing our native abilities and our experience.

 

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Only by having a correct attitude towards G-d, a correct conception of Him

Curious what you mean by “correct” in light of the first quote from your post. 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Brother Bear said:

 

Curious what you mean by “correct” in light of the first quote from your post. 

If we have no illusions about what and who we are, and if we free ourselves from our inherited down to the bone Jonathan Edwards conception of G-d as terror inspiring holder of the web strand over the flames, if we come to understand that our lives, our salvation is a collaborative enterprise with loving, kind Beings Who have only our benefit at heart, then we have a correct understanding, a correct attitude, a correct relationship.

 

Edited by USU78
To illustrate and contextualize the issue.
Link to comment
55 minutes ago, USU78 said:

MFBukowski and I have had conversations in the past hereabouts on the subject of JSJr's and Mormonism's unique ability to anticipate modern philosophical thought.  The Late XVIIIth-Early XIXth Century poet, playwright, and thinker Schiller advised his hypothetical philosopher king to pursue through aesthetics the worthy goal of transcending matter and mind in order to become a creator through play [Spieltrieb].  JSJr taught that we are, at our most fundamental, both in our prior life, our present life, and in our life to come, demiurgical beings.  We once helped to create the world we now live in.  We seek to continue on to be creators with and for G-d in the hereafter.  We are to create in partnership with G-d, as He communicates TRVTH in our hearts and in our minds, an abundant life here.

It is the creation of that abundant life that I wish to explore in this thread, and all are welcome to offer what they wish, so long as it's on topic.

It occurred to me reading Alma 34:37, which is connected to and of a kind with Philippians 2:12-13, that "working out our salvation" is just another way of saying we are to create that abundant life here.

Now, yes, there's the often confusing "fear and trembling" [phobos kai tromos] which suggests the attitude we should bring to the work of our creation of our lives.  Let's get this at least partway out of our way, however.  That is a paraphrase of Psalm 2:11, which states: "Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling."  Cf.  Psalms 55:5.

The "fear" in the Hebrew [which is also translated in the Septuagint as phobos], is more in the nature of "respect" and "awe," rather than terror, and the way that "trembling" is presented in the Psalm is likewise not to be understood as "shaking in fear" as used, but rather in excitement and joy.  We are thus to "work out our salvation" with respect for G-d, standing in awe of Him, but with great joy to the point of trembling.

As MFB never tires of pointing out, our ability to perceive the world around us, the phenomena we encounter and, to a certain extent, even ourselves [please keep Freud out of this], depends upon our senses communicating data to our minds and hearts.  We can know nothing except as filtered through our perceptions and colored by our experiences.  Thus we in a sense create the world by taking in our perceptions of it, making sense of those perceptions by employing our native abilities and our experience.  Our salvation, I argue, we create "work out" in the same way.  The key to making our lives abundant, however, is in that Hebrew/Greek idiom phobos kai tromos.  Only by having a correct attitude towards G-d, a correct conception of Him and relationship with Him, can we hope to live in abundant joy to the point of dancing naked on the beach, having created a world where such joy is an everyday thing.

Men are, after all, that they might have joy.

Have at it!

Blessed Bovine dude you say it so much better than I do- I have to take some notes here.

There is so much to comment on here- I love that you brought up the connection to Romanticism and Schiller and the boys.  What is amazing is how Joseph anticipates that- and I have a firm opinion that in fact the philosophical world was actually prepared by Providence to be ready for Mormonism when it arrived so that the Restoration could replace the sectarian dualism of the time.  I think it started with Kant and his "synthetic apriori" but that gets kind of philosophically technical perhaps.  The bottom line is that Kant thought that we construct reality through a process of knitting together perceptions into what we know as reality, and I think he was right on the money.

I saw that in Mormonism with the idea that God "organized" our world through intelligence- and bingo I was hooked intellectually- but that actually came after I had a testimony of the Book of Mormon based on an understanding of Romanticism and indeed guys like Schiller.

But oddly, lately I am getting a lot of flak for NOT believing in some kind of external TRVTH who which language corresponds.  "What??  He doesn't believe in TRUTH then how can he believe in God?

Of course that is a misunderstanding.  What I am really saying is that NO WORDS can FULLY contain God enough to qualify any human words to be "truth".  In that sense, no there are no verbal truths which are "accurate"  to actually expressing anything literal about God- they are only vague stabs made by human brains to describe what the human making the statement believes, in some cases they are INSPIRED stabs.  We call those inspired stabs and poems and analogies "scriptures" and if God thinks they are close enough to get his imprimatur he will give us a "testimony" to use those words to meditate on and perhaps let the spirit work in us so we can amplifiy them as you suggest, into our own "world" of understanding.

So is it ONLY for "here"- the abundant life in this world?  What about faithful people who just have not been able to define that "abundance"?

Well no, obviously we have hope for all those things "unseen" which are taught in the gospel.  But the main point is that it includes all those things RIGHT HERE as well if we are so blessed.

So yes, I think we are creating our worlds right here and right now as well as having the potential to do that on the other side after eons of learning and progression.

So how do we know anything about God then?

How do we know anything about the world in general?  BY DIRECT EXPERIENCE of it, just as we can have a direct experience of God as Joseph did or according to our capabilities, as most of us have one with a "testimony"

The problem is that testimonies cannot be expressed verbally and capture the "reality" of the full experience.  Imagine the color red as you experience it.  Now try to explain what "red" is to a blind man.   It cannot be done.  Neither can a religious experience be conveyed in its fullness.  

That language does not and cannot correspond to "reality" has been understood by philosophers at least since the time of William James, in the late 19th century, I am not making this up.  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/#5

The notion of "truth" becomes undefinable- Yes we know what the word means and we can use it accurately in court, etc.  No one is debating that.  Using a word and defining it are two different matters, as has famously been shown in the case of obscenity.   The reason we have "triers of fact" in a court situation is that the "truth" is often difficult to establish beyond doubt, and in a court "facts" are determined by human beings who do the best they can to reasonably determine the "truth".

The practical determination of "truth" always boils down to what a community makes of it- that is the best that humanity has been able to come up with to define the term, as evidenced by courts themselves.  In important matters, courts determine "facts" and "truth" precisely BECAUSE there is no pure definition of these terms but the community "knows it when they see it"

So in the most important cases in which the truth is debated- in cases of life and death of real people- the best humanity can do in defining truth is not abstract objectivity but what the community "knows when they see it".   That is the BEST humans have been able to put forth in defining "truth" !

And so it is with religious and moral truth.  The best any religious community can do to determine "truth" is what the community "knows when they see it"

And even atheist philosophers understand that- so that is the highest standard we can rationally hold and is a widely agreed upon standard for "truth"

The bottom line is that as a society we need to acknowledge that - that our personal "truth" can rationally differ from the "truth" of others.  Within our communities we may debate if the "church is true" but our determination cannot rationally be applied to another's beliefs on these matters.  If we are not part of their community, we cannot argue their "truth" all we can do is understand the relativity of truth in matters of faith and morals.

So what about science?   Same thing!!

The community of physicists determine what is "true" in physics. psychologists determine what is "true" in psychology, geologists in geology and so on.

No difference between scientific and religous truth- it is determined by the community which is judging the proposition.

So is this "relativism" "BAD" for religion?   Emphatically NO!

In these cases we - the community of Mormons, in say, a conference, can legitimately determine the "truth" for the community and what is determined is 1- not relevant to other communities- that is the bad news- but what is the good news is 2- not debatable by other communities either

So the next time you are confronted by an atheist about the "truth" of your faith, know that philosophically he is ignorant of what the standard of "truth" even is to many philosophers who are THEMSELVES atheists!

So yes- all this "relativism" is good for religion because it makes religion as rational as anything else in matters of what is important in our lives.

Science is never about what is "important" because it is intentionally impartial.  Matters of religion and what is "important" in an individual's life are always partial.

Science never discusses the importance or significance of anything.  A scientific investigation of the crucifixion would concentrate on the rate of blood flow perhaps, describing in detail death by crucifixion and leave it at that.

It would not discuss the IMPORTANCE of that event because that is something each of us perceive and understand on our own.  How can science prove that this event saved mankind from their sins?

Obviously this is not a matter for scientific study.  We have no sin-o-meter to show a reduction in the effects of sin in our lives- the very notion is absurd.  Yet we still demand scientific evidence for spiritual matters.  That very notion is anti-religion because it bases the truth of religion on science instead of our own impressions from God- our own direct experience from within our hearts.

So that's it in a nutshell.   A big nutshell but shorter than it might have been!  ;)

 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

I am getting better at the correct conception of Him, the relationship is strained never had much luck with earthly father types seems to have a big effect on the Father in Heaven type. 

The great thing about life is we get chances to repair relationships with [especially] family again and again.  There are exceptions, of course.  Sometimes the person with whom we've had troubles dies or cuts ties, leaving no chance for repair.  Most of the time, though, there is hope.

My Daddy issues were fixed in an instant when he, several years before he passed, expressed tearfully his regrets and gave me the gift of being able to forgive, which I'd been struggling with.  He had always been a great man, with family failings.  By the time he passed, he was simply a great man, and that's the memory I keep treasured.

His humility stunned me.

He created a brand new self and world through self-examination, humility and repentance.

You wanna understand the correct conception of G-d?  Look at that former world-class athlete and athletic coach whose sons called him "Coach," not "Dad" or "Father," that teenage golden gloves Mountain States champ, that MVP of his WWII service football team, playing at 5'7 against NFL draftees, that proud 20-something who fouled up his VA paperwork, not wanting to ask for help, preventing his going to medical school on the GI bill, that crazy redheaded So-and-So who picked up a later Mr Olympia bodybuilder gymrat by his shirtfront, slamming him against a wall for mouthing off to the Coach, who pleaded with his rheumy eyes and failing voice for forgiveness for being so rough and apparently uncaring decades before.  Suddenly you understand the caring was always there, and that he regretting his actions as soon as he made them, but because of pride, frustration, weakness, whatever couldn't get it out past his teeth.

Why should anybody assume G-d is less than him?  He enjoins love, correct moral choices.  He makes clear He expects stumbles and doesn't much mind, so long as we make any harm ensuing from our stumbles good, whereupon we're to move on, making yet other stumbles.  We're toddlers to Him.  Why would we think He would be angry when we, in our rush, run face-first into the Koi Pond?

Jonathan Edward's wrathful godling is an abomination.  He doesn't exist, and to the extent he once did,  Nietzsche was right.  He is, or dang well should be, dead.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

My Daddy issues were fixed in an instant when he, several years before he passed, expressed tearfully his regrets and gave me the gift of being able to forgive, which I'd been struggling with.  He had always been a great man, with family failings.  By the time he passed, he was simply a great man, and that's the memory I keep treasured.

Thank for trying to help. My Dad passing away when I was 8 years old was awful but probably saved my life if you know what I mean.  What went really wrong is that no other man really treated me as a son.  I do not bond well with men I fear it is because I was raise by my Grandmother and Mother.  Grandma was basically good but not available to have emotions with. My Mom was pretty much insane but could not be forced to treatment because she was not dangerous. Grandfather died before my father.  Oh well these things make you tougher.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Metis_LDS said:

Thank for trying to help. My Dad passing away when I was 8 years old was awful but probably saved my life if you know what I mean.  What went really wrong is that no other man really treated me as a son.  I do not bond well with men I fear it is because I was raise by my Grandmother and Mother.  Grandma was basically good but not available to have emotions with. My Mom was pretty much insane but could not be forced to treatment because she was not dangerous. Grandfather died before my father.  Oh well these things make you tougher.

Was mich nicht umbringt ... .  :)

Not all of us fall all the time safely inside statistical probable norms.

And do not, under any circumstances, ask about my Mommy issues.  :P

Link to comment
On 2/7/2018 at 9:06 AM, USU78 said:

Jonathan Edward's wrathful godling is an abomination.  He doesn't exist, and to the extent he once did,  Nietzsche was right.  He is, or dang well should be, dead.

What is amazing to me is that Neitzschean perspectivism is seen as antithetical to Mormonism and yet we have an open canon and each individual is encouraged to receive their own direct revelations from God.

The idea that truth is contextual is an abomination to many, yet DC 93 says

Quote

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

which to me implies the active living nature of truth and its intelligent creation which is essential to existence itself.   Without our organization of truth through intelligence there can be no existence.  Sometimes it appears that truth is "discovered" and that usage is common.  Sometimes it appears that truth is "created" through organization.

"New" species of fish are often "discovered" in fish markets in Asia where fishermen have known about that species habits for generations in knowing how to catch and cook them, and yet they are not "discovered" until a scientist puts them into their "proper" taxonomy and suddenly the "new" species is "discovered" https://www.earthtouchnews.com/discoveries/new-species/crab-found-in-chinese-fish-market-turns-out-to-be-a-new-species/

Is that discovery or creation of a new taxonomy?   It is often said that Columbus "discovered America" when of course we know that was an unpleasant surprise to the indigenous peoples who lived there.  I am not so sure they were happy to have been "discovered" and yet from a European perspective it was almost as if a new world had been "created" and indeed the very words "New World" imply just that.

As far as I have heard the Americas are geologically no "newer" than Asia.  ;)

There is a fascinating article written by President Kimball in which the tension between what is "absolutely true" and that which is true in "spheres" is palpable and is one of my favorite examples of this phenomenon. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng  But of course our dear president Kimball was not intending this to be a philosophical discourse, but a lesson in how to live our lives balancing ideas which always work for mankind with those which change in their utility.  Philosophers often distinguish between "judgemental relativism" as opposed to "factual relativism"  and I think that distinction accounts for the apparent conflict in some of President Kimball's statements.  But again, his purpose was to teach about Christ and not a philosophical discourse, thank God.  This very distinction is a perfect example of "spheres" of knowledge!

Change must always be balanced with what is stable, for in this dialectic one cannot have one without the other.  Proponents of unchangeable truth often attack relativists with the accusation that "relativism cannot be true if there is no truth" or say that relativists believe that relativism is absolutely true and so they contradict their own position.

This was a crux of a discussion against relativism brought forth by by Peter Boghossian in a famous book called "Fear of Knowledge"  and this book was widely accepted as absolute truth itself by many of the new atheists https://www.amazon.com/Fear-Knowledge-Against-Relativism-Constructivism/dp/0199230412

Unfortunately it was later pointed out to Boghossian that the true relativist position was more along the lines of "Even relativism is only relatively true" which of course would be consistent with a true form of relativism.  Because he could not get outside his own paradigm for absolute truth, in the final analysis the book was ineffective  because it begged the question from the beginning that truth was absolute.

I heartily sustain President Kimball as a prophet seer and revelator in teaching this principle, even though I might disagree with some of his wording as a non-specialist in philosophical wording.

The semantics become irrelevant- but the principle taught IS "absolutely true"!  Truth exists in spheres- and that IS the absolute truth!!   "Nothing as as constant as change!"

This mode of thought hearkens back to Heraclitus who compared reality to a vast river which was eternally constant- but constant only in it's continual changing!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 2/6/2018 at 4:11 PM, Brother Bear said:

 

Curious what you mean by “correct” in light of the first quote from your post. 

VERY briefly for me a "true" perception of the world "as it is" is pre-lingusitic, meaning the feeling, or the raw experience itself before it is put into words, and then we inevitably distort it by putting it into words.  So Nietzsche said "there are no facts, just interpretations"

There are contextual ways of saying things, some of which are better than others, and some are termed "correct" or "true" because within a context, that formulation does its job better than another formulation yet no group of words are exactly and absolutely "correct" yet we use that term all the time.   So it is correct in a relative sense.

One example I always use is driving up a mountain road and rounding a corner and suddenly having a beautiful mountain scene reveal itself.

Our first reaction is awe, perhaps, unspeakable awe, and then we stutter out perhaps the word "BEAUTIFUL!"  or a simple "WOW"!

How descriptive are those utterances?  ;)  There are no words to describe why that scene is "beautiful".  That has to be the most ambiguous word in the English language- it can describe anything to the point of being virtually meaningless.

So for me that is the "world as it is"- as it directly presents itself to us and how our perceptions are created.

So too with religious experience.  The feeling that you are loved by God is unspeakble.  The awe of seeing the milky way can be unspeakable.   Joseph's visions were unspeakable and so we have different descriptions.  Colors cannot be described to blind people.  How does an oboe sound differently than a trumpet?   Why is an itchy mosquito bite so compelling?

What makes a person "beautiful" and why do we use the same word for a mountain scene?  What do they have in common?

Those are all the "world as it is"- direct, pre-verbal experience.

In parables we hear of the "Adamic language" which could handle such description until the Tower of Babel, and language has been "confounded" ever since.  ;)

 

 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Change must always be balanced with what is stable, for in this dialectic one cannot have one without the other.  Proponents of unchangeable truth often attack relativists with the accusation that "relativism cannot be true if there is no truth" or say that relativists believe that relativism is absolutely true and so they contradict their own position.

I suspect most situations where these attacks come have to do with ethical and moral behaviors.  And that goes as much for the Mormon as the antiMormon.

How often do we hear the prissy Protestant or smart-allecky 13-year-old nascent Athiest whine about the Nephi/Laban incident, claiming that Mormon TRVTH claims utterly fail because [they infer, since the Biblical text doesn't say it] it is always a sin to kill somebody.  The radical anti-War and anti-death-penalty activist suffers from the same myopia. 

If G-d commands Abram or Nephi to kill somebody, there's usually a very good reason.  The "sphere" in which the commandment is given is everything.  For Nephi, the "sphere" in which the commandment was given was the death sentence previously pronounced by the plutocratic, thieving ganglord lying in his own vomit in the ditch, and the previously given commandment to retrieve the Plates.

And Abram's big test was to kill his own son.  Three great world religions [arguably four] base their TRVTH claims on an incident where the contextualizing "sphere" involves G-d's command to commit the very sin Abram spent his life thitherto railing against:  child sacrifice.  Abram obeyed, as Nephi would later obey, notwithstanding the "sphere" offered no particular comfort for the big exception to the general rule.

This isn't a tangential issue.  It's at the core of our faith.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I suspect most situations where these attacks come have to do with ethical and moral behaviors.  And that goes as much for the Mormon as the antiMormon.

How often do we hear the prissy Protestant or smart-allecky 13-year-old nascent Athiest whine about the Nephi/Laban incident, claiming that Mormon TRVTH claims utterly fail because [they infer, since the Biblical text doesn't say it] it is always a sin to kill somebody.  The radical anti-War and anti-death-penalty activist suffers from the same myopia. 

If G-d commands Abram or Nephi to kill somebody, there's usually a very good reason.  The "sphere" in which the commandment is given is everything.  For Nephi, the "sphere" in which the commandment was given was the death sentence previously pronounced by the plutocratic, thieving ganglord lying in his own vomit in the ditch, and the previously given commandment to retrieve the Plates.

And Abram's big test was to kill his own son.  Three great world religions [arguably four] base their TRVTH claims on an incident where the contextualizing "sphere" involves G-d's command to commit the very sin Abram spent his life thitherto railing against:  child sacrifice.  Abram obeyed, as Nephi would later obey, notwithstanding the "sphere" offered no particular comfort for the big exception to the general rule.

This isn't a tangential issue.  It's at the core of our faith.

No you are absolutely right and I had never noticed that ironic point which is a total refutation of fundamentalism, that the bible "says exactly what it means"!

It's all there in a nutshell in one universally accepted story: situational ethics, spheres of truth and contextualism right there for all in the Old Testament yet!!

Absolutely yes, it is at the very CORE.of "true religion" and is a pretty irrefutable example in my opinion.  Great call.

I will have to steal that one immediately!  ;)

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No you are absolutely right and I had never noticed that ironic point which is a total refutation of fundamentalism, that the bible "says exactly what it means"!

It's all there in a nutshell in one universally accepted story: situational ethics, spheres of truth and contextualism right there for all in the Old Testament yet!!

Absolutely yes, it is at the very CORE.of "true religion" and is a pretty irrefutable example in my opinion.  Great call.

I will have to steal that one immediately!  ;)

 

You better, and publish d@mn quick!

Link to comment
On 2/6/2018 at 4:37 PM, USU78 said:

If we have no illusions about what and who we are, and if we free ourselves from our inherited down to the bone Jonathan Edwards conception of G-d as terror inspiring holder of the web strand over the flames, if we come to understand that our lives, our salvation is a collaborative enterprise with loving, kind Beings Who have only our benefit at heart, then we have a correct understanding, a correct attitude, a correct relationship.

Then what of God's justice, USU78?  It may seem scandalous to LDS, but the Bible has far more passages about the wrath of God against sin and sinners than it does about His love.  And worth noting that no one spoke of the reality of Hell in the Bible more often than Jesus.

You impugn Jonathan Edwards, but tell us how your "correct understanding" fits the reality and the horror of the cross, where God died in our place for our sins. 

--Erik

 ___________________________________________________

Do you wish to see God’s love?  Look at the Cross.
Do you wish to see God’s wrath?  Look at the Cross.

--D.A. Carson, "God's Love and God's Wrath"

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Then what of God's justice, USU78?  It may seem scandalous to LDS, but the Bible has far more passages about the wrath of God against sin and sinners than it does about His love.  And worth noting that no one spoke of the reality of Hell in the Bible more often than Jesus.

You impugn Jonathan Edwards, but tell us how your "correct understanding" fits the reality and the horror of the cross, where God died in our place for our sins. 

--Erik

 ___________________________________________________

Do you wish to see God’s love?  Look at the Cross.
Do you wish to see God’s wrath?  Look at the Cross.

--D.A. Carson, "God's Love and God's Wrath"

G-d's justice.  Yes, what of it?  What is it for?  Why does it exist?  Did He create it or is it, being a concept, something that has existence separate from Him?  And is our conception of justice the same as His?  "My thoughts are not your thoughts," He teaches us.  Why should we assume we can understand what He thinks on this or any other subject? 

You seem awfully certain that every instance of a Biblical expression of G-d's anger/wrath is (a) directed at the person himself and not his behavior, (b) precludes the possibility of that anger/wrath not abating upon repentance [have you not ever read Jonah?], and that perhaps (c) what we perceive as His anger/wrath is not simply the natural flow of consequences for our own stupid, often willful choices?

As an exercise a few years ago, I snipped out all of the return/repentance sections of Isaiah and included them in a little virtual pamphlet I would read from time to time.  Since the two terms are identical in Hebrew [their conception of peoplehood being bound up both in the real estate and the Torah], you don't have to assume every time G-d or His Prophet says, "Return, O backsliding Israel" that He's talking about where the backslider is living, but rather what he's up to.

I, quite frankly, find as much, sometimes I think more of G-d's love expressed to real people in real time and in real, intimate terms in the OT than in the New.

As for Br'er Edwards  ...  would you want him as your confessor?

Me neither.

To a Mormon type, he is exactly the kind of problematic professor of Protestant Christianity that the Master had in mind when enjoining against joining any of the churches active in the Finger Lakes region back in ~1820.

As for the Horror of the Cross  ...  what greater act of love could be imagined than that cosmic undertaking?  To know of a love so intimate that it applies to every individual who ever lived or who will ever live, to know that the lover knows each one intimately, yet all equally profoundly, is to love correctly.  And to return that love implies a correct understanding. 

Nietzsche's dead godling inspires no such love.  But we all understanding him all too correctly.

Edited by USU78
Wasn't finished.
Link to comment
On 2/12/2018 at 9:43 AM, USU78 said:

G-d's justice.  Yes, what of it?  What is it for?  Why does it exist?  Did He create it or is it, being a concept, something that has existence separate from Him?  And is our conception of justice the same as His?  "My thoughts are not your thoughts," He teaches us.  Why should we assume we can understand what He thinks on this or any other subject? 

You seem awfully certain that every instance of a Biblical expression of G-d's anger/wrath is (a) directed at the person himself and not his behavior, (b) precludes the possibility of that anger/wrath not abating upon repentance [have you not ever read Jonah?], and that perhaps (c) what we perceive as His anger/wrath is not simply the natural flow of consequences for our own stupid, often willful choices?

As an exercise a few years ago, I snipped out all of the return/repentance sections of Isaiah and included them in a little virtual pamphlet I would read from time to time.  Since the two terms are identical in Hebrew [their conception of peoplehood being bound up both in the real estate and the Torah], you don't have to assume every time G-d or His Prophet says, "Return, O backsliding Israel" that He's talking about where the backslider is living, but rather what he's up to.

I, quite frankly, find as much, sometimes I think more of G-d's love expressed to real people in real time and in real, intimate terms in the OT than in the New.

As for Br'er Edwards  ...  would you want him as your confessor?

Me neither.

To a Mormon type, he is exactly the kind of problematic professor of Protestant Christianity that the Master had in mind when enjoining against joining any of the churches active in the Finger Lakes region back in ~1820.

As for the Horror of the Cross  ...  what greater act of love could be imagined than that cosmic undertaking?  To know of a love so intimate that it applies to every individual who ever lived or who will ever live, to know that the lover knows each one intimately, yet all equally profoundly, is to love correctly.  And to return that love implies a correct understanding. 

Nietzsche's dead godling inspires no such love.  But we all understanding him all too correctly.

Appreciate the thoughtful reply, it will take more than a five minute exercise to do it any approximation of justice.  Maybe this weekend. 

Happy Valentines Day, USU78

--Erik

Link to comment
On 2/12/2018 at 10:43 AM, USU78 said:

G-d's justice.  Yes, what of it?  What is it for?  Why does it exist?  Did He create it or is it, being a concept, something that has existence separate from Him?  And is our conception of justice the same as His?  "My thoughts are not your thoughts," He teaches us.  Why should we assume we can understand what He thinks on this or any other subject? 

You seem awfully certain that every instance of a Biblical expression of G-d's anger/wrath is (a) directed at the person himself and not his behavior, (b) precludes the possibility of that anger/wrath not abating upon repentance [have you not ever read Jonah?], and that perhaps (c) what we perceive as His anger/wrath is not simply the natural flow of consequences for our own stupid, often willful choices?

As an exercise a few years ago, I snipped out all of the return/repentance sections of Isaiah and included them in a little virtual pamphlet I would read from time to time.  Since the two terms are identical in Hebrew [their conception of peoplehood being bound up both in the real estate and the Torah], you don't have to assume every time G-d or His Prophet says, "Return, O backsliding Israel" that He's talking about where the backslider is living, but rather what he's up to.

I, quite frankly, find as much, sometimes I think more of G-d's love expressed to real people in real time and in real, intimate terms in the OT than in the New.

As for Br'er Edwards  ...  would you want him as your confessor?

Me neither.

To a Mormon type, he is exactly the kind of problematic professor of Protestant Christianity that the Master had in mind when enjoining against joining any of the churches active in the Finger Lakes region back in ~1820.

As for the Horror of the Cross  ...  what greater act of love could be imagined than that cosmic undertaking?  To know of a love so intimate that it applies to every individual who ever lived or who will ever live, to know that the lover knows each one intimately, yet all equally profoundly, is to love correctly.  And to return that love implies a correct understanding. 

Nietzsche's dead godling inspires no such love.  But we all understanding him all too correctly.

It’s interesting to examine the debate between Penal Substitution and Christus Victor theories of Atonement. I find whichever one the individual adheres to determines how you interpret biblical passages of mercy and judgment.

Link to comment
On 2/6/2018 at 3:40 PM, USU78 said:

MFBukowski and I have had conversations in the past hereabouts on the subject of JSJr's and Mormonism's unique ability to anticipate modern philosophical thought.  The Late XVIIIth-Early XIXth Century poet, playwright, and thinker Schiller advised his hypothetical philosopher king to pursue through aesthetics the worthy goal of transcending matter and mind in order to become a creator through play [Spieltrieb].  JSJr taught that we are, at our most fundamental, both in our prior life, our present life, and in our life to come, demiurgical beings.  We once helped to create the world we now live in.  We seek to continue on to be creators with and for G-d in the hereafter.  We are to create in partnership with G-d, as He communicates TRVTH in our hearts and in our minds, an abundant life here.

It is the creation of that abundant life that I wish to explore in this thread, and all are welcome to offer what they wish, so long as it's on topic.

It occurred to me reading Alma 34:37, which is connected to and of a kind with Philippians 2:12-13, that "working out our salvation" is just another way of saying we are to create that abundant life here.

Now, yes, there's the often confusing "fear and trembling" [phobos kai tromos] which suggests the attitude we should bring to the work of our creation of our lives.  Let's get this at least partway out of our way, however.  That is a paraphrase of Psalm 2:11, which states: "Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling."  Cf.  Psalms 55:5.

The "fear" in the Hebrew [which is also translated in the Septuagint as phobos], is more in the nature of "respect" and "awe," rather than terror, and the way that "trembling" is presented in the Psalm is likewise not to be understood as "shaking in fear" as used, but rather in excitement and joy.  We are thus to "work out our salvation" with respect for G-d, standing in awe of Him, but with great joy to the point of trembling.

As MFB never tires of pointing out, our ability to perceive the world around us, the phenomena we encounter and, to a certain extent, even ourselves [please keep Freud out of this], depends upon our senses communicating data to our minds and hearts.  We can know nothing except as filtered through our perceptions and colored by our experiences.  Thus we in a sense create the world by taking in our perceptions of it, making sense of those perceptions by employing our native abilities and our experience.  Our salvation, I argue, we create "work out" in the same way.  The key to making our lives abundant, however, is in that Hebrew/Greek idiom phobos kai tromos.  Only by having a correct attitude towards G-d, a correct conception of Him and relationship with Him, can we hope to live in abundant joy to the point of dancing naked on the beach, having created a world where such joy is an everyday thing.

Men are, after all, that they might have joy.

Have at it!

Have you ever read any George Macdonald? Unfortunately he’s mostly known for being one of the major influences on C.S. Lewis but he’s written some interesting fiction and nonfiction about the nature of God in a beautiful way. I’d recommend for your reading pleasure his book Lilith. You could probably get a free copy electronically if you have a Kindle.

Link to comment
On 2/12/2018 at 9:43 AM, USU78 said:

G-d's justice.  Yes, what of it?  What is it for?  Why does it exist?  Did He create it or is it, being a concept, something that has existence separate from Him?  And is our conception of justice the same as His?  "My thoughts are not your thoughts," He teaches us.  Why should we assume we can understand what He thinks on this or any other subject? 

You seem awfully certain that every instance of a Biblical expression of G-d's anger/wrath is (a) directed at the person himself and not his behavior, (b) precludes the possibility of that anger/wrath not abating upon repentance [have you not ever read Jonah?], and that perhaps (c) what we perceive as His anger/wrath is not simply the natural flow of consequences for our own stupid, often willful choices?

As an exercise a few years ago, I snipped out all of the return/repentance sections of Isaiah and included them in a little virtual pamphlet I would read from time to time.  Since the two terms are identical in Hebrew [their conception of peoplehood being bound up both in the real estate and the Torah], you don't have to assume every time G-d or His Prophet says, "Return, O backsliding Israel" that He's talking about where the backslider is living, but rather what he's up to.

I, quite frankly, find as much, sometimes I think more of G-d's love expressed to real people in real time and in real, intimate terms in the OT than in the New.

As for Br'er Edwards  ...  would you want him as your confessor?

Me neither.

To a Mormon type, he is exactly the kind of problematic professor of Protestant Christianity that the Master had in mind when enjoining against joining any of the churches active in the Finger Lakes region back in ~1820.

As for the Horror of the Cross  ...  what greater act of love could be imagined than that cosmic undertaking?  To know of a love so intimate that it applies to every individual who ever lived or who will ever live, to know that the lover knows each one intimately, yet all equally profoundly, is to love correctly.  And to return that love implies a correct understanding. 

Nietzsche's dead godling inspires no such love.  But we all understanding him all too correctly.

Having given a little more time & consideration to your post--

:0)

Your opening questions—what is God’s justice for, why does it exist, did he create it, etc.—they simply go beyond what has been revealed in Scripture.  Perhaps the closest we get is found in the Book of Job, wherein Job charges God with injustice and God answers him from the whirlwind.  But it’s not an answer the reader might expect.  You could even say it wasn’t a real answer at all.  But Job answers the answer—by repenting “in dust and ashes” (42:6).  And reader isn’t left to doubt the appropriateness of Job’s response.

On to your second paragraph, this one is straightforward.  And I’ll lift my answer from the previous link I shared (which you appear to have overlooked).

Fourteen times in the first fifty psalms alone, the psalmists state that God hates the sinner, that His wrath is on the liar, and so forth. In the Bible the wrath of God rests on both the sin (Rom. 1:18–23) and the sinner (1:24–32; 2:5; John 3:36).

I think this addresses your next couple of paragraphs as well, as they seem based on the same premise.

Regarding Jonathan Edwards—suffice it to say I don’t share your revulsion.  That we really are as loathsome as some poisonous insect in our rebellion and deserve to be dropped into the fire (the image that so scandalizes you)—well, it certainly makes me appreciate God’s grace as revealed in the person & work of Jesus.  A lower view of grace must necessarily follow any other understanding.  And really, why would you champion for that?

Last but not least, The Cross.  You call it an "act of love"—but what do you say Christ’s work thereon accomplished?  Certainly not the finished work of salvation (which would be my answer) as you appear strongly opposed to such a reading.

So kindly tell us what you think this “cosmic undertaking” actually accomplished?  It's your turn now to provide some answers, USU78.

--Erik

_______________________________________________________

I believe in the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, If God had not chosen me, I should never had chosen him; and I am sure he chose me before I was born, or else he would never had chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for some reason unknown to me, for I never could have found any reason in myself why he should have looked upon me with special love.

--Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Link to comment
On 2/18/2018 at 6:11 PM, Five Solas said:

Your opening questions—what is God’s justice for, why does it exist, did he create it, etc.—they simply go beyond what has been revealed in Scripture.  Perhaps the closest we get is found in the Book of Job, wherein Job charges God with injustice and God answers him from the whirlwind.  But it’s not an answer the reader might expect.  You could even say it wasn’t a real answer at all.  But Job answers the answer—by repenting “in dust and ashes” (42:6).  And reader isn’t left to doubt the appropriateness of Job’s response.

Quite so.  G-d answers from the whirlwind, giving context to man's suffering as being bound up in creation itself.  The Creator has an agenda for man.  These things are clear.

G-d doesn't clarify much on the very crucial and central questions I posed, however.  Except in His actions following the trials and the confrontation from the whirlwind.  He rewarded the man who endured well, who finished the race.  Is that an act of justice?  Of course not, at least as justice is conceptualized in Evangelical thought.  He owes us nothing.  He gives out of His sense of generosity.  There is nothing of justice there  ...  as you appear to conceive of justice, a binary 1/2 of a cosmic whole, with mercy being the other 1/2.  In LDS thought, Mercy is everything, notwithstanding what you may have seen in knee-jerk rhetoric responding to Evangelical attacks.  Yes, it can be a useful tool in approximating the Judgment, but we are foolish if we think the Master does anything without G-d's approval and foreknowledge, regardless how we view Justice vs Mercy.  The Master isn't some sleazy defense attorney.  He acts in collaborative concert with the Father in bringing souls back to Him.  What He is is our adoptive Father, and upon our Baptism He states, "This day have I begotten you."

Quote

 

On to your second paragraph, this one is straightforward.  And I’ll lift my answer from the previous link I shared (which you appear to have overlooked).

Fourteen times in the first fifty psalms alone, the psalmists state that God hates the sinner, that His wrath is on the liar, and so forth. In the Bible the wrath of God rests on both the sin (Rom. 1:18–23) and the sinner (1:24–32; 2:5; John 3:36).

I think this addresses your next couple of paragraphs as well, as they seem based on the same premise.

 

Not really, but I quite understand.  You ignore as too difficult the initial questions I posed. Until you get your hands around those, the rest will have to wait.

Quote

Regarding Jonathan Edwards—suffice it to say I don’t share your revulsion.  That we really are as loathsome as some poisonous insect in our rebellion and deserve to be dropped into the fire (the image that so scandalizes you)—well, it certainly makes me appreciate God’s grace as revealed in the person & work of Jesus.  A lower view of grace must necessarily follow any other understanding.  And really, why would you champion for that?

I don't see G-d approving of the very creatures He made "a little lower than [G-d]" being referred to as loathsome.  Such a notion is indeed repulsive.  Since we are "G-ttes Geschlecht," as Luther translates it [G-d's offspring/generation], and considering the brokenness of our hearts and our lives that we place on the altar for His healing, the Graceful G-d of Mormonism is astonished at those who would so denigrate His children.  Edwards does poorly.  He does so magnificently, but poorly nevertheless.

Quote

 

Last but not least, The Cross.  You call it an "act of love"—but what do you say Christ’s work thereon accomplished?  Certainly not the finished work of salvation (which would be my answer) as you appear strongly opposed to such a reading.

So kindly tell us what you think this “cosmic undertaking” actually accomplished?

 

I'm quite sure I'm not smart enough fully to grasp, let alone express what He undertook, what He suffered, or what He accomplished at the end of His life among us.  If a Being Who is under no obligation to undertake, suffer and accomplish what He did, undertakes, suffers and accomplishes out of, not love, but revulsion for the despicable creatures you say we are, then the universe makes no sense.  Only One Who loves deeply, profoundly, unreservedly could do such a thing.

 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...