God as a man

[evangelist]

evangelist:

In the same way that Jesus is present everywhere though he has a body of flesh and bone.

Where did you get this theology in the bible??

Re:4:1: After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

Re:4:2: And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

Re:4:3: And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

Re:4:4: And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

Re:4:5: And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

Re:4:10: The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

one love

[tana]

Evangelist:

Would you mind explaining a bit your perspective on the Evangelist's concept of "God"?

Is God a being unto himself, separate from *his* creation?

Most importantly, is he bound by some eternal law of cause and effect, or is he free to affect an effect with no cause whatsoever?

Curt

[ERayR]

ERayR... I wouldn't say it's chaotic... it's rather just unknown orderly.

Organization doesn't have to organize chaos... it can organize something that's ordered in a different way as well ;-)

OK that works for me too. I was just giving an answer to the question of what God will do for eternity.

[ERayR]

Those scriptures are very clear and so clear to understand a blind person could read them and get true revelation!

IWhen a spirit has no flesh and bone from the beginning how can you say a spirit has flesh and bone from the beginning it is contradicting the bible.

Plus Go is SPIRIT and that is why He can be everywhere at the same time.

I did hear of spirit going to different places but one place as a time or maybe two places, but not everywhere at the same time even to be in all the universes at the same time like God almighty!

one love

Your going to have to give me something besides your out of the air assertion of why spirit can not/is not clothed in in flesh. There are too many Old Testament accounts of angels who were flesh and bone ministering to the prophets. (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob for starters).

[TAO]

OK that works for me too. I was just giving an answer to the question of what God will do for eternity.

Yah, sorry... it's just chaos means very bad things for me... chaos would mean for me it wouldn't be worth living in the world, because then I couldn't predict anything =).

That's one reason I'm partial to unrecognizable order ;-)

[ERayR]

Yah, sorry... it's just chaos means very bad things for me... chaos would mean for me it wouldn't be worth living in the world, because then I couldn't predict anything =).

That's one reason I'm partial to unrecognizable order ;-)

To me chaos is simply unorganized or not in harmony.

[tana]

Chaos or organized, if god is not a part of it, he is a product of it. To insert god into existence and make him governed by rules, makes him indistinguishable....

God then falls into the same conundrum as the materialist, who by their own dogma of cause and effect require that they can never approach answering the question of *first cause*....

[ERayR]

Chaos or organized, if god is not a part of it, he is a product of it. To insert god into existence and make him governed by rules, makes him indistinguishable....

Why does he have to be either?

God then falls into the same conundrum as the materialist, who by their own dogma of cause and effect require that they can never approach answering the question of *first cause*....

First cause is only valid when you divide eternity into small pieces. If you don't chop eternity into pieces and leave it whole there is no *first cause*....

[TAO]

If you don't chop eternity into pieces and leave it whole there is no *first cause*....

Hehe... yay, someone else knows what I mean in certain threads XD.

[tana]

Why does he have to be either?

First cause is only valid when you divide eternity into small pieces. If you don't chop eternity into pieces and leave it whole there is no *first cause*....

This is a repost of # 142.

The differences in our philosophies though are IMO, you/Abrahamic religion, has God as separate from this chaos....an observer. I have us all as a part of this system.

"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. ... The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high". (Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, 1950)

If the material world of *things* is ONE continuous field, why wouldn't all aspects of existence be a part of the all? How can there be *voids* of absolutely nothingness between persons, dimensions...or even awareness's?

[ERayR]

This is a repost of # 142.

The differences in our philosophies though are IMO, you/Abrahamic religion, has God as separate from this chaos....an observer. I have us all as a part of this system.

"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended (as fields). In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description, irreducible in the same sense as the concept of matter (particles) in the theory of Newton. ... The physical reality of space is represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four independent variables - the co-ordinates of space and time. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high". (Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, 1950)

If the material world of *things* is ONE continuous field, why wouldn't all aspects of existence be a part of the all? How can there be *voids* of absolutely nothingness between persons, dimensions...or even awareness's?

Is this supposed to be some kind of enlightenment? I was reading this some 50 years ago.

My answer is I Corintians 13:12: For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Again I ask why does it have to be either/or?

[TAO]

If the material world of *things* is ONE continuous field, why wouldn't all aspects of existence be a part of the all? How can there be *voids* of absolutely nothingness between persons, dimensions...or even awareness's?

Tana, there isn't 'voids in between'. When we observe something, we observe it on a limited scale... it's just important to remember that it is part of a bigger piece, no matter how big you look at it.

[tana]

Is this supposed to be some kind of enlightenment? I was reading this some 50 years ago.

My answer is I Corintians 13:12: For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Again I ask why does it have to be either/or?

I apologize if my comments have come across as condescending. Not intended.

My perception of LDS teachings as to the inception of god is; he is a *part* of the uncreated eternal "more fine" matter....Or, the sea of intelligences.

[tana]

Tana, there isn't 'voids in between'. When we observe something, we observe it on a limited scale... it's just important to remember that it is part of a bigger piece, no matter how big you look at it.

If there are no voids between particles....or waves of all that is, my reasoning then says all that is, is one. There is only One existance, and all that is must be a part of that....with no voids of seperation.

[ERayR]

I apologize if my comments have come across as condescending. Not intended.

My perception of LDS teachings as to the inception of god is; he is a *part* of the uncreated eternal "more fine" matter....Or, the sea of intelligences.

No problem.

Is that a problem? Can't one be a part of something which they have power or dominion over? To me God's love is indicative of his involvement. One has much greater empathy for something if they are part of it.

[ERayR]

If there are no voids between particles....or waves of all that is, my reasoning then says all that is, is one!

Might not be what you mean but then again we might not have a very good understanding of what he is saying.

John 17:21-23

21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be cone in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

[TAO]

If there are no voids between particles....or waves of all that is, my reasoning then says all that is, is one. There is only One existance, and all that is must be a part of that....with no voids of seperation.

Yes, this would be correct... but what I mean is that there are no 'voids' as in random events... everything is interconnected through cause and effect... but they have been causing and effecting each other infinitely in the past, and will infinitely in the future.

[tana]

No problem.

Is that a problem? Can't one be a part of something which they have power or dominion over? To me God's love is indicative of his involvement. One has much greater empathy for something if they are part of it.

Thanks guy, no worries.

I would liken it then to similar to this part of the Einstein quote: The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high

[tana]

Yes, this would be correct... but what I mean is that there are no 'voids' as in random events... everything is interconnected through cause and effect... but they have been causing and effecting each other infinitely in the past, and will infinitely in the future.

Tao: I don't always agree with everything you submit on here....But I do like your style!

[TAO]

Hmmm.... tana and ERayr, in a few days, I might be thinking of starting a thread on something rather obscure but interesting like this... it'd be great if you guys participated when I make it =D.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[ERayR]

Thanks guy, no worries.

I would liken it then to similar to this part of the Einstein quote: The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high

The trouble with trying to fit it into Einstein's theory is that you are then trying to put God in a box. I would say that wherever God decides to appear the energy density becomes particlarly high. With a glory that exceeds the noon day sun I would guess that is a lot of energy.

[ERayR]

Hmmm.... tana and ERayr, in a few days, I might be thinking of starting a thread on something rather obscure but interesting like this... it'd be great if you guys participated when I make it =D.

Best Wishes,

TAO

I can't promise as I am just heading into my busy time.

[LeSellers]

Can't one be a part of something which they have power or dominion over?

I know generals are.

Lehi

[evangelist]

This is called a deflection, and does not answer the CFR.

Good mormon answer to my question.

one love

[evangelist]

I think that word does not mean what you think it means. Let us investigate this claim you appear to be making. As the scripture goes;

So there is your verse; God is a Spirit. In English the use of 'a' in this sentence is termed an indefinite article, thus one may look up the definition as follows:

as such it indicates singular. Furthermore the term usage of Spirit can be cross referenced with another epistle from John. Lets look at 1 John 4:

The Spirit of God; notice the of statement. There belies only two possibilities from this. One; the spirit of God has a container lest is has no need of of in the statement; or two; it refers to another separate entity known also as the Spirit of God (aka the Holy Ghost).

Continuing on.

Isn't it peculiar that the antichrist which is purported to be a physical person has the same connotation as the previous utterance; 'spirit of'. Even more to the point the entire chapter is riff with individuals who must try the 'spirits' for the reason given that individuals with bodies have gone out. Let's continue on with your post (which by-the-by you have not answered my question yet).

I'm going to have to ask where this came from. Or in other words a CFR is added to you to fulfill. Where is it stated that God has no flesh and bone?

You're missing an indefinite article there (it's termed an 'a'); indicating that He is of more than only spirit. Lets look at an example: You are a spirit. You know emotions such as love, hatred, etc, etc, etc. You know that one day your body will waste away and die. Your spirit is eternal. You are a spirit (even when you had a body, you are a spirit). One day you will be resurrected, and will have a spirit and a body, thus you are a spirit.

And this has what bearing on this conversation?

http://bible.cc/luke/24-39.htm

one love