Has Jesus always been a God?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

This you have NOT done. We won't bring up how you respond to being pinned down, at this time.

Of what relevance was your broad generalization about evangelical anti-Mormons, if it did not apply to me?

You wrote:

You can't explain God because He is "beyond our total comprehension" and yet you have this beef, expressed in this thread, that Mormons aren't totally clear and consistent in their explanation of God/Godhood.

Not the same type of problem at all.

You wrote:

"explaining away every difficulty in one's religion by appealing to one's subjective religious experience"?

Really? "every difficulty"?

Please feel free to show where I have NOT done this.

Oh wait that would be too easy. How about showing where I HAVE done this.

I didn't claim that you personally have explained away every difficulty in your religion by your subjective religious experience. My point is that no matter what type of difficulty is posed for LDS claims, someone on the LDS side will fall back on their "testimony." This includes subject matter where God's transcendence should not be an issue (e.g., factual discrepancies in historical matters).

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I didn't modify your statement. It is irrelevant to my question if you affirm that Jesus has always been a divine being but not always a God. Your answer is still that Jesus has not always been a God, whereas previously you have repeatedly insisted I was wrong in claiming this to be the LDS doctrine.

You wrote:

I should have used the word "god" instead of "God". So sue me. After all I am not a professional "apologist".

Red herring (among other things). I had asserted that LDS doctrine denies that Jesus has always been God. You got on your high horse, demanding references, belittling me for not backing up my statement from LDS scriptures, etc., etc., so I started this thread asking the members here to answer the question.

Finally, I am not ignoring the alleged problem with Matthew 28:18. Offer an exegesis of the verse supporting your claim that it is inconsistent with orthodox theology but not with LDS theology, and I'll address the alleged problem.

[Vance]

I didn't claim that you personally have explained away every difficulty in your religion by your subjective religious experience.

Of what relevance was your broad generalization about Mormons, if it did not apply to me?

My point is that no matter what type of difficulty is posed for LDS claims, someone on the LDS side will fall back on their "testimony."

Really? "no matter what type of difficulty"?

This includes subject matter where God's transcendence should not be an issue (e.g., factual discrepancies in historical matters).

So one supposed specific example is proof of you universal rule?

Well in that case you could say the same thing about evangelicals.

No matter what type of difficulty is posed for evangelical claims, someone on the evangelical side will fall back on their "testimony."

Yup. I think we can safely make that universal rule for evangelicals as well. After all, it can't be proven wrong.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Unless you claim that you NEVER appeal to your testimony in response to objections to your beliefs, my generalization does include you.

I am getting back on the road again and don't know when I will be able to continue this or other discussions.

[Vance]

I didn't modify your statement.

Yes, you did by deleting the dependent clause.

It is irrelevant to my question if you affirm that Jesus has always been a divine being but not always a God.

No it isn't irrelevant.

Your answer is still that Jesus has not always been a God, whereas previously you have repeatedly insisted I was wrong in claiming this to be the LDS doctrine.

You haven't shown that it is official "LDS doctrine". To do that you have to provide reference from LDS canon or quotes from official documents signed by all members of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve, which you have not done, nor can you.

I had asserted that LDS doctrine denies that Jesus has always been God.

Which is false. Official LDS doctrine doesn't do that at all. Providing unofficial quotes doesn't establish it as "LDS doctrine", and you know (or at least should know) that.

You got on your high horse, demanding references, belittling me for not backing up my statement from LDS scriptures, . . .

Which you haven't done nor can you.

. . . so I started this thread asking the members here to answer the question.

And we have provided our opinions and understanding. We did cast our pearls before you.

Finally, I am not ignoring the alleged problem with Matthew 28:18.

Of course you are. There was a time when the being we know as Jesus did NOT have all power. That is why He needed to have it given to Him. That separates His being for that of God (the Father). THAT TOTALLY DESTROYS the doctrine of the trinity of the "orthodox" world.

Jesus being a separate being from God, the Father, SUPPORTS LDS theology, and DESTROYS orthodox theology.

[Vance]

Vance,

Unless you claim that you NEVER appeal to your testimony in response to objections to your beliefs, my generalization does include you.

I don't recall ever doing that. To me, speaking only for my self, appealing to my testimony in the face of anti-Mormon objections is casting pearls.

I am getting back on the road again and don't know when I will be able to continue this or other discussions.

Travel safely!!!!

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

I am still 700 miles from home and facing some new problems even before I get back, but I happen to have Internet access and think I will try to offer a few responses. It may be late tomorrow or even a few days before my next opportunity to post.

I appreciate the effort to respond, and wish you well. I know it is a tough time for your family. On a personal level, all my best.

As you are no doubt aware, there is some difficulty in speaking of anything "before" time. So I'm worried, frankly, that your question is designed to derail the topic of this thread rather than to answer my question directly.

This is precisely the question. If there was no "before time" WHERE WAS GOD WHEN HE CREATED THE EARTH? HE WAS "BEFORE TIME" WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE.

And to say this is a derail, is a blatant dodge. The OP is directly about the pre-existence of Jesus and his Father. My answer is not a derail in any conceivable way.

If you agree that time had a created beginning, then you will have to maintain that God's eternity is not a literal, linear infinite regress (i.e., that God is infinitely "old" because his existence goes back endlessly in a linear temporal fashion). This would be the Augustinian view of time, or at least some variation of that view. In this context, to say that God has "always" been God means that God's existence as God transcends the whole temporal order. It means that when time began, God already existed as God without any beginning. This classical Christian theistic concept is well known. God is the transcendent One whose existence and nature transcends the finite boundaries of the space-time creation. He is infinite/transcendent with respect to time (eternality), space (omnipresence/immensity), and energy (omnipotence).

This doesn't seem to be the usual LDS view. It certainly wasn't Joseph Smith's view, particularly toward the end of his life. From your later post, it becomes clear that you don't really hold that God (let alone Christ) transcends time--only that he transcends the temporal matrix of this particular universe, outside of which you posit something called successive eternities.

All this is is rehash of Augustine with a statement that Augustine's view is not the LDS view. Not horribly surprising!

You have no answer for this do you?

Where was God "before time" if "before time" is nonsense?

Once again, you have been proven wrong...

Again, I have proved you wrong.

My but you're cocky.

You haven't even started to prove me wrong. You would at least have to answer the question to even attempt to do so.

[mfbukowski]

mfnukowski,

You wrote:

This is completely irrelevant to the present thread.

If you want to know the truth, YOU are now completely irrelevant to the "present thread". You left, it got derailed. We did not keep the thread sacred in your memory.

Now that you're back, we will be glad to continue the conversation as you have started it. Get some realistic expectations for Pete's sake.

I am sorry about your Father in law. You left. The thread got derailed.

Big deal.

[mfbukowski]

In other words does "all" mean "all" or does the world the apostle lived in affect the meaning.

Does it make a difference? What can you know about what you don't know? Nothing. How does what you don't know affect your life? It doesn't.

By the same token, how can humans in general know about what humans in general do not know about? They can't.

All we know is what we know, and that is what we have as what is "real" to us.

In a sense we can postulate or define God as omnipotent, but we will never know if there are things he can't do, because we can't know that.

[Vance]

Does it make a difference?

Only in the sense that what the apostle meant may very well NOT mean what WE THINK he meant. We CAN'T "know" what he meant, we can only THINK we know.

Which in a way, I think, but do not know, is another way of agreeing with you.

What can you know about what you don't know? Nothing. How does what you don't know affect your life? It doesn't.

By the same token, how can humans in general know about what humans in general do not know about? They can't.

All we know is what we know, and that is what we have as what is "real" to us.

In a sense we can postulate or define God as omnipotent, but we will never know if there are things he can't do, because we can't know that.

I agree.

[Tarski]

If I have dug up all the pennies in my yard that I know about, does it follow that I have dug them all up?

It might as well.

Wrong. It doesn't follow. That's the right answer.

You don't get to spend any more do you?

So what? The existence of something is not exhausted by it's utility to me.

Not that it matters, but note that the existence of those pennies may have effects on future people even if they don't know it. Those pennies could erode/decompose and change the chemical composition of the soil affecting (in principle) its fertility, or some minor change in the electrical properties of the ground. Due to chaos, small thing may have big effects (even on human minds).

(I predict you will or would have only responded to this part of my comments despite my prefacing with the phrase "not that it matters". You seldom answer the main questions I ask or respond to my main points.)

In any case, it is a nonsensical world view that denies the existence of all things of which we have no specific experience. The number of stars in the galaxy affects its mass and gravitational field whether or not we know or experience those stars with any kind of specificity.

That science is empirical and values falsifiability has ramifications as to whether we accept, say, atoms as real or accept an atomic theory (as a unified whole). But we do not go around demanding direct experience of each atom before we concede that such must exist (we need them to be there for theoretically consistency--and they are there).

What good is that missing penny that you don't know about?

existence=utility?

I'm surprised you would argue that things we cannot experience are "real".

I suppose much turns on what you mean by experience. I do not trust you to be using this word in the appropriate sense or with due caution. In particular I reject idealism. Also, please don't equivocate between what I can experience and what we (as a scientific community) can experience.

Have I experience all the atoms in a block of lead if I have measured its mass? Yet, those atoms are responsible for the mass and must be there.

A well supported theory allows us to surmise things and our knowledge there can be quite solid. And, please recall that science is not about deductive proofs in a closed system nor is it about some impossible notion of "absolute" knowledge.

I may know nothing about any specific atom in a pencil in front of me but I sure do know in a scientific sense that such atoms exist. What experience do I have concerning the atoms in your brain (or torso)? Yet I know they are there because of a closure principle; my well attested theories about human biology lose their motivation, explanatory power and much more if I am unable to assume a world where living humans beings have brains.

I also know the atmosphere has more atoms than the ones I personally experience since it would not, according to our well tested theories, behave as it does.

Evidence leads us to accept whole theories which assume the existence of much more than we directly experience. It is not just about experience in the tired idealistic sense of what subjective sensations occur in specific human beings.

Finally, I am sure that there is a largest number that anyone shall ever precisely specify (in a way that avoids a possible Richard's paradox) and yet, I feel comfortable saying that there are larger numbers than that (just add one). Again, it is a sort of theoretical closure.

Let me add that God is not on the same footing as atoms. We do not have empirical evidence enough to warrant the adoption of a theoretical structure that would allow us to conclude his existence (the scientifc requirement is not that we should be able to just see him directly on demand).

[mfbukowski]

A link to a blurb about the liar's paradox (a topic of dubious relevence)??. That's it?

Again you fail to address my criticisms in a straightforward manner.

I am pretty sure that Tarski' treatment of the liar's paradox (which I don't need to be schooled on) doesn't do anything to add meaning or coherence to the stuff you were coming up with. It is just not the issue.

The liar's paradox in which a question is asked of someone who always lies, appears to be inescapable, and it is within it's own context.

How ever it can be solved by stepping "outside the box" to a different linguistic "level"- changing the context- to one in which we ask a question ABOUT the original question to resolve the paradox.

The paradox of a "time before time" is similar. It appears to be a paradox until was step out of the context and ask a question about the original question, just like the liar's paradox.

Tarski's insight works in both situations.

[mfbukowski]

A good post. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am not making this stuff up as I go. As you know, I am combining Wittgenstein and Dewey to get most of my answers. I am not citing them as "authorities" by any means, it's just that your continual attitude of "no one reasonable could possibly believe this stuff" is far from the mark.

So what? The existence of something is not exhausted by it's utility to me.

Agreed. I almost went into this. I even thought about those pennies decomposing, but I didn't want to confuse the issue. I particularly like the case of one falling into something which perfectly preserves it, and then the finder becomes rich because he has found the rarest coin in the world when he does find it.

Not that it matters, but note that the existence of those pennies may have effects on future people even if they don't know it. Those pennies could erode/decompose and change the chemical composition of the soil affecting (in principle) its fertility, or some minor change in the electrical properties of the ground. Due to chaos, small thing may have big effects (even on human minds).

BUT NOTICE YOUR POINT REQUIRES THAT THE PENNIES INDEED HAVE UTILITY FOR SOMEONE SOMETIME, or make some kind of difference in the "world as experienced". We may not know those effects- the whole universe may be held together by some kind of waves which we have not yet experienced/discovered. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE ARE NO DISCOVERIES TO BE MADE IN THE FUTURE, just that they cannot be properly said to "exist" or "be real" NOW. The world of what is "real" is describable and can be experienced.

(I predict you will or would have only responded to this part of my comments despite my prefacing with the phrase "not that it matters". You seldom answer the main questions I ask or respond to my main points.)

I'll try to do better. I tend to skim posts because they rarely respond to my points either. We tend not to communicate very well here since we all have A.D.D. or probably wouldn't be here.

In any case, it is a nonsensical world view that denies the existence of all things of which we have no specific experience. The number of stars in the galaxy affects its mass and gravitational field whether or not we know or experience those stars with any kind of specificity.

Yep. I don't do that.

That science is empirical and values falsifiability has ramifications as to whether we accept, say, atoms as real or accept an atomic theory (as a unified whole). But we do not go around demanding direct experience of each atom before we concede that such must exist (we need them to be there for theoretically consistency--and they are there).

Yep. If atomic theory were not confirmed by evidence (experience) we wouldn't believe it.

I suppose much turns on what you mean by experience. I do not trust you to be using this word in the appropriate sense or with due caution.

I'm crushed.

In particular I reject idealism. Also, please don't equivocate between what I can experience and what we (as a scientific community) can experience.

I don't.

Have I experience all the atoms in a block of lead if I have measured its mass? Yet, those atoms are responsible for the mass and must be there.

A well supported theory allows us to surmise things and our knowledge there can be quite solid. And, please recall that science is not about deductive proofs in a closed system nor is it about some impossible notion of "absolute" knowledge.

I believe none of the above

I may know nothing about any specific atom in a pencil in front of me but I sure do know in a scientific sense that such atoms exist. What experience do I have concerning the atoms in your brain (or torso)? Yet I know they are there because of a closure principle; my well attested theories about human biology lose their motivation, explanatory power and much more if I am unable to assume a world where living humans beings have brains.

Uh huh.

I also know the atmosphere has more atoms than the ones I personally experience since it would not, according to our well tested theories, behave as it does.

In other words, "according to our well tested experience"

Evidence leads us to accept whole theories which assume the existence of much more than we directly experience. It is not just about experience in the tired idealistic sense of what subjective sensations occur in specific human beings.

Don't recall saying that.

Finally, I am sure that there is a largest number that anyone shall ever precisely specify (in a way that avoids a possible Richard's paradox) and yet, I feel comfortable saying that there are larger numbers than that (just add one). Again, it is a sort of theoretical closure.

Not sure of the relevance of this point. Math is known a priori, "by definition", and I am sure you don't want to say that some new scientific discover will disprove mathematics, so I think you agree it is a prior too. That is of course an over-simplification, but I am not sure of your point anyway.

Let me add that God is not on the same footing as atoms. We do not have empirical evidence enough to warrant the adoption of a theoretical structure that would allow us to conclude his existence (the scientifc requirement is not that we should be able to just see him directly on demand).

Not sure what you mean here. Spiritual experience can be (by definition) experienced and described. It is therefore "real" experience, and millions have had this experience.

There you go. Detailed comments to each of your points, most of which were not relevant to the argument.

See why I tend to skim posts?

[Tarski]

There you go. Detailed comments to each of your points, most of which were not relevant to the argument.

You didn't make an argument.

You said

Similarly, what does "all power" mean? Does God have to have powers we do not know about in order to be "omnipotent"?

Another way of saying this is: If God "only" has all the powers we can know about, can he still be called "omnipotent"?

If you answer "no"- tell me, what power is it precisely which he is lacking? None, by definition! We cannot know what he is lacking!

I pointed out that even in empirical science we must be able to talk about entities which we do not experience since the theory implies it.

Every scientist I know would agree that there are more atoms than we will ever experience. We can talk about the notion of all of the particles in the universe even if we never know about them.

Similarly, I can consider the set of molecules breathed by Napoleon, for many reasons we know that they exists as a set.

Why in the world wouldn't the set of all possible powers include those powers which we know nothing about? There is nothing about the scientific viewpoint that would prohibit us from rationally considering wholes such as the set of all God's powers without assuming that this set can contain nothing which we don't know about. Heck, even the set of all my powers is beyond your ken or mine.

Next you respond with some kind of agreement to all my examples of cases where we rationally assume the existence of entities which we know nothing specific about other than they must exist on theoretical grounds and be of a certain type (a particle, a godly power, a star).

What exactly do you want to stand by?

Here is what I think is obvious. We can assume that there are powers which we know nothing about. For why should the set of possible powers turn out to match exactly those we happen to know about or even those which we have the power to conceive of?

Then, we rightfully say that if God is all powerful he must not only have those powers which we can think of but also all of those actual or possible powers that we happen not to be able to conceive. Indeed, those powers may affect us since God could use them on our behalf (I don't say that they do need to affect us to be real--they may affect other creatures created by God).

Now really, do you want to stand by this notion that what we cannot know about just doesn't exist? Do even what to say that we cannot speak of them? We are speaking of them in a general sense. We have spoken of them as soon as we concede that things we shall never know about almost certainly exist.

I wonder, are humans special? What about things which cats know nothing of? Do they exist? (communism or electrons for instance)

Now on a second front you argue by appealing to the existence of a higher lever from which we may consider "before time". This just doesn't cut it until you exhibit the level, its rules and so on, and bring your epistemic peers into the level where they can participate in this level to determine if it is sense or nonsense.

You haven't done that. You only have a vague threat of the existence of this level to which all I can say is "oh really?".

As it stands, what you were saying about consecutive eternities and so on remains nonsense.

[Tarski]

Not sure what you mean here. Spiritual experience can be (by definition) experienced and described. It is therefore "real" experience, and millions have had this experience

You see. Here is where you help yourself to whatever notion of experience suits you. If this is what you mean by experience then it is not what is meant in science when we speak of the empirical.

When it comes to discovering reality and being justified in ones beliefs about the real world, it is not enough to simply point to a vague class of experience and then just adopt whatever folk theories may exist about such experiences. We must design experiements and force a confrontation of these ideas with what we already know. We must contront them with skepticism. In short, we must adopt methods of acting, thinking, arguing and experimenting powerful enough and strict enough to avoid having to accept everything from Scientology to Raelianism (to Mormonism). After all, there are plenty of people having experiences with those things and it will not do to claim that such experiences provide acceptable evidence for the various wild and at times contradictory prescientific theories which make up Scientology, Raelianism etc.

I deny that Mormon spiritual experience is anymore unified, objective or suggestive any reality beyond what we see in Scientology, Evangelicalism, Raelianism, etc.

Why for example, shoudn't we take those experiences to be teaching us something about fantasy, psychology, delusion, wishful thinking or hallucination? Certainly, these things must be playing a role since we can agree on the false nature of most of these belief systems (all but Mormonism?). And please do not plague me with the platitude about other religion containing partial truth. That really doesn't cut it.

[mfbukowski]

I pointed out that even in empirical science we must be able to talk about entities which we do not experience since the theory implies it.

Every scientist I know would agree that there are more atoms than we will ever experience. We can talk about the notion of all of the particles in the universe even if we never know about them.

I already answered this. I really wish you would read my posts. I won't repeat this again. The theory of atoms itself is confirmed by experience and experiment. If it wasn't it wouldn't be "science". Science relies on experimental evidence and the only way we get that is by experience. It is absurd to think that one must experience each individual atom- just as it would be absurd to say that every individual piece of plankton, elephant or whale is not "real" until observed by a human. I do not hold that position.

Similarly, I can consider the set of molecules breathed by Napoleon, for many reasons we know that they exists as a set.

Why in the world wouldn't the set of all possible powers include those powers which we know nothing about?

I didn't even mention that. I was never talking about "all possible powers". Of course all possible powers could include things we don't know about. I was talking about the set of combined human experiences, and how we experience what is called "real". This is about philosophy which means it is about language since that is the subject matter of philosophy- how we speak about things, which is usually co-extensive with how we think about things.

Next you respond with some kind of agreement to all my examples of cases where we rationally assume the existence of entities which we know nothing specific about other than they must exist on theoretical grounds and be of a certain type (a particle, a godly power, a star).

We don't have to know anything specific about them to have them be "experienced" if their collective existence is verified by experience. I don't have to know every elephant in the world to know that elephants exist.

All you specifically mentioned:

1-You talked about the number of stars calculated by their mass. The mass of the "average star" is known through observation- or experience. The mass of stars is calculated through experience, so we can guess how many their might be- since we can observe the gravitational effects they exert.

2- Atomic theory, which is verified by experience. You mentioned this a few times in different ways, but none of it proves your point. Atomic theory is verified by experience. Atoms are no different than elephants- I don't have to see each one to know they exist.

I accept theories which are verified by science because science is verified by experience- ie: observation

You also mention math, which I do not accept as being verified by experience; I believe math principles are a priori truths- they are "true by definiton"- and ultimately linguistic in nature. What we MEAN by "1" is that 1+1=2. But of course I am far from alone on all my positions philosophically, and that view is a common one. It is odd you haven't heard of it.

Here is what I think is obvious. We can assume that there are powers which we know nothing about.

Sure, we can assume they are possible. But tell me about them- what ARE they? You can't because we don't KNOW about them- they have not been experienced.

For why should the set of possible powers turn out to match exactly those we happen to know about or even those which we have the power to conceive of?

LOL. They don't match. Everything possible is not everything real. You should know that one!

Then, we rightfully say that if God is all powerful he must not only have those powers which we can think of but also all of those actual or possible powers that we happen not to be able to conceive.

Which is it: ACTUAL or POSSIBLE? Actual ones are the ones we know about. Possible ones are fantasies.

Now really, do you want to stand by this notion that what we cannot know about just doesn't exist?

They are literally unspeakable. We cannot know them we cannot talk about them. If you think I am wrong, please tell me about them. Please tell me in detail about ONE THING which no one has ever experienced it. How big is it- what does it do? What color? Animal vegetable or mineral? If you want to say such a thing "exists" then wonderful. You are defining existence to literally include NO THING.

We cannot SAY that some "Thing" "exists" until we can see it, feel it, and give it a name. That is the point. We can't talk about it or think about it.

Do even what to say that we cannot speak of them? We are speaking of them in a general sense. We have spoken of them as soon as we concede that things we shall never know about almost certainly exist.

I believe that that is a sentence which causes us to think in a confused manner based on an obsolete ontology of what is "real"- actually it is based in neoplatonism- the notion that there are ideal forms which exist independently of experience. What we experience is all we can know- why should we speak in a way which perpetuates errors in thinking?

I wonder, are humans special? What about things which cats know nothing of?

Well yes, I think humans are special; I believe God is a human. Of course animals experience things, but we can't know much about that unless we observe their behavior and make conclusions that way. Perhaps some day, there will be some level of communication established there, as with the chimps which speak in sign language. Nagel's famous essay on What it's like to be a bat goes into the problem in some detail while also discussing what makes knowledge "objective".

Now on a second front you argue by appealing to the existence of a higher lever from which we may consider "before time". This just doesn't cut it until you exhibit the level, its rules and so on, and bring your epistemic peers into the level where they can participate in this level to determine if it is sense or nonsense.

I agree. I'm working on a paper on that. I'll make you a deal- when it is published you will be the first to know. If I remember.

[Balzer]

Wait a sec. In another thread in which I asked about the LDS doctrine of eternal progression and specifically asked whether or not Jesus had progressed and that was what made him God, you said "We are all spirit offspring of God. Jesus was the first. Due to his "pinnacle of intelligence, devotion and obedience" to God the Father, he was given a great calling or assignment. He offered to do it because of His love for God and for us. He offered to deliver us all from spiritual and physical death, which both were forthcoming necessary consequences of the fall of Adam. He was also instrumental in the creation of the earth under the direction of the Father. At what point He became part of the Godhead, I don't know. But He did progress somehow and some way, just as we all progress. We really don't details though"

LeSellers, BCSpace, and kamenraider all agreed.

And I think it was McConkie who said

[mfbukowski]

Deleted. Unfinished post posted in error

[mfbukowski]

Not sure what you mean here. Spiritual experience can be (by definition) experienced and described. It is therefore "real" experience, and millions have had this experience.

You see. Here is where you help yourself to whatever notion of experience suits you. If this is what you mean by experience then it is not what is meant in science when we speak of the empirical.

When it comes to discovering reality and being justified in ones beliefs about the real world, it is not enough to simply point to a vague class of experience and then just adopt whatever folk theories may exist about such experiences. We must design experiements and force a confrontation of these ideas with what we already know. We must contront them with skepticism. In short, we must adopt methods of acting, thinking, arguing and experimenting powerful enough and strict enough to avoid having to accept everything from Scientology to Raelianism (to Mormonism).

As I have said many many many times on this board, AND SPECIFICALLY TO YOU, I make a logical distinction, similar to the one Nagel uses in the article I cited above about Bats between the kind of experiences we all share and the kinds of experiences which only we personally experience, and how we speak and think about them. I really don't feel like going into it in detail again, but I will briefly. Speaking and thinking of our own experiences and confusing them with other's experiences is actually a kind of logical category error- Wittgenstein would call it a confusion of "language games". Linguistically, the distinction is between statements from the first person point of view (I am hungry, I love you, I have had a spiritual experience) and statements from the second or third person point of view. (We watched a beautiful sunset- We saw a racoon in the tree OR Scientists tell us the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second.)

The second type of sentence is usually called "objective" in some sense because more than one person can share the experience, and the first kind "subjective" because only I can know if it is true or not.

Both types of experience are "real experiences", but only third person statements can be in any way "scientific".

Long story very short, this means that spiritual experience is "real" and about "reality" but subjective. As a first person experience only I can verify it, and you cannot know if I am lying or not. Scientific experience is third person experience and is verified by multiple persons.

After all, there are plenty of people having experiences with those things and it will not do to claim that such experiences provide acceptable evidence for the various wild and at times contradictory prescientific theories which make up Scientology, Raelianism etc.

Subjective experience cannot be verified by anyone but the experiencer, and has nothing to do with science.

I deny that Mormon spiritual experience is anymore unified, objective or suggestive any reality beyond what we see in Scientology, Evangelicalism, Raelianism, etc.

I disagree, but agree that because it is subjective experience, that cannot be shown objectively.

And please do not plague me with the platitude about other religion containing partial truth. That really doesn't cut it.

Well I think that can be shown but not here not now. I am getting about done on this thread. You don't listen anyway. I am tired of repeating everything.

[mfbukowski]

Bump for a response

Respectfully,

Balzer

I don't know what kind of response you expect. The whole thread is about that. Read the thread.

[Balzer]

I don't know what kind of response you expect. The whole thread is about that. Read the thread.

Was hoping the contradictory statements would be explained somehow. In this thread she said Christ has always been part of the Godhead, and in the earlier thread she said he progressed to be God. This stuff can be confusing enough without adding inconsistency.

Respectfully,

Balzer

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

I appreciate the effort to respond, and wish you well. I know it is a tough time for your family. On a personal level, all my best.

Thanks so much for that.

You wrote:

This is precisely the question. If there was no "before time" WHERE WAS GOD WHEN HE CREATED THE EARTH? HE WAS "BEFORE TIME" WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE.

I don't follow you. Are you arguing that time had no beginning?

You wrote:

And to say this is a derail, is a blatant dodge. The OP is directly about the pre-existence of Jesus and his Father. My answer is not a derail in any conceivable way.

My question was not about the preexistence of Jesus and his Father. I know you believe Jesus and the Father preexisted. My question was this: has Jesus always been God? Whatever your view of the nature of time, whether you think time had a beginning or not, I simply want to know if in your opinion Jesus has been God at all times or if you think Jesus became God.

You wrote:

All this is is rehash of Augustine with a statement that Augustine's view is not the LDS view. Not horribly surprising!

You asked me a question, I offered you an answer.

You wrote:

You have no answer for this do you?

Where was God "before time" if "before time" is nonsense?

There is no answer for a nonsense question except to point out that the question entails nonsense. I answered your question by explaining that there is no "before time" and that the classic orthodox position is that God transcends time. How is this not an answer?

You quoted me as saying:

Once again, you have been proven wrong...

Again, I have proved you wrong.

You then replied:

My but you're cocky. You haven't even started to prove me wrong. You would at least have to answer the question to even attempt to do so.

First, I did answer your question. Second, when I said that I had proved you wrong, I was replying to your claim that I always ignore you. Obviously, I did not ignore you, but did in fact respond to your post. You may not think much of my answer, but you ought at least to admit that I did not ignore you.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rob writes:

The fallacy here is very simple to understand. Suppose I asked you how old President Obama is. You would hopefully respond that he is 49. If I were to claim that you were wrong because Obama didn't become President Obama until 2009, you would rightly dismiss my argument as the sophistical reasoning of a smart-aleck. When we say that President Obama is 49 years old, we mean of course that the person who bears that title and name has lived for 49 years, not that he has held the title "President" for 49 years. Likewise, when we say that Jesus has always existed, or that he preexisted his human life, we don't mean that the human nature of Jesus preexisted his human nature (!), or even that he has the name Jesus before his human birth. We simply mean that the person known to us in his humanity as Jesus Christ existed before he became a human being and before he bore those names in history.

I think that you are still off the mark here Rob. What is the "person of Jesus"? Do you accept the statement of faith as adopted at Chalcedon? Jesus, according to Chalcedon is wholly man. He doesn't have a "human nature" and a "God nature" - to suggest this is to separate or differentiate between the two. And this is something that Chalcedon categorically denies. It isn't a fallacy here. I stopped with Byrne and Haight, but I could easily produce a rather lengthy list of theologians who agree with me on this issue.

Of course, part of this is the point that your question - which you ask at the beginning of this thread - isn't really a question in good faith either (in my opinion). We might talk about defining God, for example. What is it that makes God, God? Is part of that definition that fact that He creates? And yet, don't you believe that there was a first act of creation? What was God before he began to create? Was He still a creator (but only by intention or by potential, not by action?) Perhaps, you might suggest, that God has always created - but then, how do we understand the "In the beginning"? By the same token, LDS believe that Jesus developed attributes of Godhood. He certainly in his pre-existence functioned as a creator (even if at the direction of his Father). He always had that potential, which as far as current LDS theology goes was eternally existent. So, there are a lot of ways to answer this question. I think though that you weren't prepared to face the same kinds of problems orthodox theology. What pre-exists Jesus is God - but Jesus must be created, just like us (so the definition of Chalcedon). So for you to speak of the pre-existence of Jesus (even the person of Jesus) is in fact to speak of the pre-existence of his humanity. For you to simply suggest that I am engaging in sophistry, when I critique your position that Jesus has always been God is simply incorrect.

Ben McGuire

[Rob Bowman]

Ben,

You wrote:

I think that you are still off the mark here Rob. What is the "person of Jesus"? Do you accept the statement of faith as adopted at Chalcedon? Jesus, according to Chalcedon is wholly man. He doesn't have a "human nature" and a "God nature" - to suggest this is to separate or differentiate between the two. And this is something that Chalcedon categorically denies. It isn't a fallacy here.

Chalcedon expressly affirms that Jesus is fully human and fully divine (deity), both man and God, and distinguishes these as "two natures." What version of Chalcedon are you reading? Chalcedon distinguishes the two natures but denies that they are separated into two beings (which would mean two persons).

You wrote:

I stopped with Byrne and Haight, but I could easily produce a rather lengthy list of theologians who agree with me on this issue.

I could do the same in support of your position, as well as my own, but the issue is whether these theologians are affirming the classic Incarnational position expressed at Chalcedon or critiquing it.

You wrote:

Of course, part of this is the point that your question - which you ask at the beginning of this thread - isn't really a question in good faith either (in my opinion).

How annoying and obnoxious. It's apparently okay for Mormon prophets to deny that Jesus has always been God -- and even to deny that the Father has always been God -- but it's not okay for me to ask Mormons if this is their view.

You wrote:

We might talk about defining God, for example. What is it that makes God, God? Is part of that definition that fact that He creates? And yet, don't you believe that there was a first act of creation? What was God before he began to create? Was He still a creator (but only by intention or by potential, not by action?) Perhaps, you might suggest, that God has always created - but then, how do we understand the "In the beginning"?

I'm having difficulty taking you seriously here. If one "defines" God as "that being who created the world," this definition does not imply that his being God somehow depends on his act of creation. If one holds, as I do, that God created time, there was no "before" creation in a literal temporal sense. I've discussed this point in this thread already.

You wrote:

By the same token, LDS believe that Jesus developed attributes of Godhood. He certainly in his pre-existence functioned as a creator (even if at the direction of his Father). He always had that potential, which as far as current LDS theology goes was eternally existent. So, there are a lot of ways to answer this question.

What you mean is that there are a lot of ways of changing the question. If Jesus developed attributes of Godhood, then he went from that which lacked Godhood to that which possessed Godhood. That is just another way of saying that he became God. Why not just say so? Why not be forthright and candid about what the LDS position is, instead of playing equivocation games?

You wrote:

I think though that you weren't prepared to face the same kinds of problems orthodox theology.

You think wrongly, because I was already very familiar with the objection you raised and have already thought the issue through.

You wrote:

What pre-exists Jesus is God - but Jesus must be created, just like us (so the definition of Chalcedon).

No. Again, you are misrepresenting Chalcedon. Jesus is not created; his human nature is created. According to Chalcedon, Jesus--"our Lord Jesus Christ"--is "perfect in Godhood," "truly God," while in the Incarnation he is also "perfect in humanity," "truly man," and so forth.

You wrote:

So for you to speak of the pre-existence of Jesus (even the person of Jesus) is in fact to speak of the pre-existence of his humanity.

I have thoroughly refuted this claim. Your response has been to misrepresent Chalcedon.

You wrote:

For you to simply suggest that I am engaging in sophistry, when I critique your position that Jesus has always been God is simply incorrect.

Sadly, my criticism was quite correct.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob writes:I think that you are still off the mark here Rob. What is the "person of Jesus"? Do So for you to speak of the pre-existence of Jesus (even the person of Jesus) is in fact to speak of the pre-existence of his humanity. For you to simply suggest that I am engaging in sophistry, when I critique your position that Jesus has always been God is simply incorrect.

Ben McGuire

I think I get it. I had to read this a few time. Indeed you have discovered quite a paradox for the traditional orthodox teaching that Jesus is fully man and fully God.