Trinity

[saemo]

dup

Edited July 25, 2011 by saemo

[LeSellers]

To Create I mean to Create, as in, it didn't exist before but now it does. If something existed before God, this brings to light at least two theological problems, one that something exists outside of God, and second that God is the Creator of all things.

No one here claims that anything existed before God. We are saying, as the Hebrew tells us, that the material out of which God created everything already existed prior to the creation (forming, fashioning, shaping) of the heavens and the earth. "Create" (HEB: bara) means to fashion, to shape, to form, to cut out. It does not not mean creatio ex nihil (which is, itself, an oxymoron).

Since you base your position on a false premise, you have little or no chance of being correct in your conclusions.

Lehi

Edited July 26, 2011 by LeSellers

[saemo]

That is a bit rich, coming from someone who prefers philosophical speculation over scriptural revelation.

Too bad that is your impression. I believe that God is the creator of our reason. Reason is not something that exists outside of revelation, reason brings understanding of what God has revealed.

I don't know why Mormons have a problem with this. *shrug* I'm certainly not going to forgo revelation, or reason, they work together.

[Vance]

Are you God? Who/what created the wood?

No, but irrelevant. The tree, but irrelevant.

The Bible is clear, God is the Creator of ALL things.

Classic present-ism. The author of that verse was totally unaware of elements AS WE CURRENTLY KNOW THEM.

The world (heaven and earth) he was aware of WAS ALL created by God, from preexisting elements that we are now aware of.

I believe ALL means ALL, not everything except that one thing that Mormons think exists outside of God's Creation.

Well, pushed to the limit "ALL THINGS" would include God himself, so where does that put you?

[saemo]

No one here claims that anything existed before God. We are saying, as the Hebrew tells us, that the material out of which God created everything already existed. "Create" (HEB: bara) means to fashion, to shape, to form, to cut out. It does not not mean creatio ex nihil (which is, itself, an oxymoron).

Since you base your position on a false premise, you have little or no chance of being correct in your conclusions.

Lehi

God being the creator of all things is not a false premise. It is what God has revealed.

[saemo]

No, but irrelevant. The tree, but irrelevant.

Classic present-ism. The author of that verse was totally unaware of elements AS WE CURRENTLY KNOW THEM.

The world (heaven and earth) he was aware of WAS ALL created by God, from preexisting elements that we are now aware of.

What preexisting elements are those? And why would you think God didn't create these elements when the Bible teaches God is the creator of all things. What makes these elements excluded from this teaching?

Well, pushed to the limit "ALL THINGS" would include God himself, so where does that put you?

Come, let us reason together. You can't logically create yourself, right? Thus, God is not Created.

Edited July 25, 2011 by saemo

[LeSellers]

I hope you understand there is a difference between procreating and creating.

No, you do not see it. Because you completely ignored the other ways I have created.

I see Mormonism has redefined the word "create".

"Mormonism[sic]" has not "redefined [create]". It was Catholics who did that.

I have shown that the original Heberw (bara) did not mean, and never has, creatio ex nihil. It was neoplatonism that fiddled with the dictionary, not "Mormonism".

Lehi

Edited July 25, 2011 by LeSellers

[saemo]

No, you do not see it. Because you completely ignored the other ways I have created.

"Mormonism[sic]" has not "redefined [create]". It was Catholics who did that.

I have shown that the original Heberw (bara) did not mean, and never has, creatio ex nihil. It was neoplatonism that fiddled with the dictionary, not "Mormonism".

Lehi

You haven't shown this. You've only shown your opinion.

[LeSellers]

God being the creator of all things is not a false premise. It is what God has revealed.

It is what He has revealed only if you don't fall prey to the temptation to imagine that "create" means "creatio ex nihil".

Lehi

[LeSellers]

You haven't shown [that "create" (Heb:bara) means to shape, form, fashion]. You've only shown your opinion.

Uh, did you miss the reference to Brown, Driver, Briggs?

I quoted them. It was not "only ... [my] opinion".

Lehi

Edited July 25, 2011 by LeSellers

[saemo]

It is what He has revealed only if you don't fall prey to the temptation to imagine that "create" means "creatio ex nihil".

Lehi

You are stuck on ex nihilo, really.

Just stick to "God is the Creator of all things.".....and explain how it is He is not. Even if you want to use the word make, or made, fashion, form etc. it is still the same thing. All means all, it is only if you want to imagine a pre-existing material that you fall prey.

Edited July 25, 2011 by saemo

[LeSellers]

You are stuck on ex nihilo, really.

I submit that it is you who are stuck on creatio ex nihil. Because I do not believe it; you, however, do.

Just stick to "God is the Creator of all things.".....and explain how it is He is not.

Why would I want to do that? He is the Creator of all things. You're just using a fallacious definition of "creator".

Even if you want to use the word make, or made, fashion, form etc. it is still the same thing.

No, it's not, unless you deny that He did His divine work using existing materials.

All means all, it is only if you want to imagine a pre-existing material that you fall prey.

Since the Bible is clear that there was material from which God formed the Earth, it is you who have the responsibility of showing that God did not use existing materials.

1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth—2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

Before God said, "Let there be light," there was an "earth...wasted and void", there was a "deep", and there were "waters" upon whose face God's spirit "fluttered". How can one see that God did not use these existing materials in His work of shaping and fashioning the "heavens and the earth"?

Lehi

Edited August 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[zerinus]

To Create I mean to Create, as in, it didn't exist before but now it does. If something existed before God, this brings to light at least two theological problems, one that something exists outside of God, and second that God is not the Creator of all things.

To create means to build, manufacture, make, or bring into existence. If I went to the woods and chopped down some trees and built myself a log house, I have created that log house. It did not exist before I made it. But that did not mean that I made the trees which I used to build it. Still, that log house did not exist before I made it, therefore it meets your definition of "create," provided you don't introduce "out of nothing" into the equation.

I prefer to not quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), because it gives the impression I'm focusing on Catholicism only, when I know that there are universal beliefs among all Christians that are expressed in the CCC. But for this instance, I'll quote the CCC, with the understanding that this is a universal belief. This is my understanding of what "natural law" is:

I have no objection to your quoting from the CCC.

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The trouble with expressions like "natural law" is that there is no standardized definition for it that everyone agrees upon, like words in the dictionary. Different people can mean different things by it. In the above quote it is defined in terms of the moral law; and I agree that moral law was decreed by God. To some people gravity is part of natural law. Photosynthesis is part of natural law. The laws of thermodynamics is part of natural law. Before throwing these expressions around it is a good idea to define them first to ensure that you and others are talking on the same terms.

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.

That is only true if we both agree on what is natural law. Thermodynamics is not written on anybody's heart.

[zerinus]

Too bad that is your impression. I believe that God is the creator of our reason. Reason is not something that exists outside of revelation, reason brings understanding of what God has revealed.

I don't know why Mormons have a problem with this. *shrug* I'm certainly not going to forgo revelation, or reason, they work together.

Nobody is against use of reason. But your reason is as good as the premises on which it is built. If your premises are philosophical and speculative, rather than based on the revealed word of God, then it is likely to lead you astray.

[zerinus]

What preexisting elements are those? And why would you think God didn't create these elements when the Bible teaches God is the creator of all things. What makes these elements excluded from this teaching?

Come, let us reason together. You can't logically create yourself, right? Thus, God is not Created.

"Creator of all things" means creator of all things that was created. It does not include the creation of what was not created in the first place. If your argument is valid, then God would have to be the created Himself, otherwise He wouldn't be the creator of "all things," would He now! I thought you said you believed in reason. I am reasoning with you with clear logic. Let's hear your reply.

[zerinus]

You haven't shown this. You've only shown your opinion.

Here is a comprehensive study of the Hebrew word for create:

http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/Bara.htm

[zerinus]

You are stuck on ex nihilo, really.

Just stick to "God is the Creator of all things.".....and explain how it is He is not. Even if you want to use the word make, or made, fashion, form etc. it is still the same thing. All means all, it is only if you want to imagine a pre-existing material that you fall prey.

No, "all" doesn't mean "all," otherwise it would have to include God himself, as explained above, which I am sure you would not accept. God did not create Himself, so that is one thing that He did not create. Therefore "all" does not mean "all".

[Hughes]

CFR. where does the Bible, since that is your putative source, does it say that man has a beginning?

For that matter, where does it say that God is "transcendent"?

Lehi

"In the Beginning God created..." Them - Male and Female....

Matt 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

God's Transcendent Nature is seen in more scriptures, but here's one:

Acrts 17:24-25 “The God who made the cosmos and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things.”

You're avoiding the issue, Hughes. Answer the question, yes or no. If God is literally present in all places, then is He in h***? If He is, and if God truly is an omnibenevolent being, then h*** isn't h*** at all, and that would mean that there is no h***. So which is it? Is God literally present in h*** (which would mean that there is no h***), or is God omnipresent through His creations and influence and not present in h*** (which would mean that h*** wasn't created by Him and is, in fact, a lack of a place, as LDS doctrine declares)? Please answer the question without dancing around it like you have been doing.

Two more examples (along with creatio ex nihilo, the Trinity, and original sin) of the post-biblical additions to Christian belief by philosophers, teachings which modern scholars agree were not taught or even known prior to what Latter-day Saints refer to as the Great Apostasy.

You make assumptions about what God's presence means, that I don't make. So, I don't agree with your conclusions about h*** or even his presence on Earth today. The scripture plainly states his presence everywhere.

[Hughes]

Hughes, on 25 July 2011 - 02:25 PM, said:

Your analogy seems to assume that multiple "infinite beings" could both fit in one space. I would like to understand how you think this is possible.

Unless you confound "infinite" with "infinitely dense" no explanation is needed. The example of two (or 2,222) lights in a single room is a very good analogy.

Lehi

I'm of the impression that God is infinite in his "being" so, I'm not sure the density of "being", but I'm pretty sure too beings don't occupy the same space, which means only one infinite being can exist, logically.

Of course Latter-day Saints believe God is omnipresent, just not in the way that you obviously do. We do not believe that He, a physical being with a tangible body, is literally in all places. That would be impossible. He is, rather, present through His influence, His creations, His love, His light, and His Spirit. The scriptures couldn't be more clear on this point. But you are, yet again, avoiding the questions I asked you. Let's reason through this:

If God is literally everywhere, then He must be in h***. But if He is in h***, then it isn't h***, because h*** is place where we are totally separated from God. Right? So that would mean that He is not present in h***, which would mean that He did not create h***, since God is present in all places that He created. Still following me? This gives strength to the LDS view that h*** is a lack of a place, where one is totally isolated from the love, light, influence, and creations of God, where we feel nothing, hear nothing, do nothing, say nothing, taste nothing, and are nothing.

I didn't think LDS doctrine was that hard to understand.

Wait, weren't you the one who said that humans are infinite beings? And yet there are obviously multiple humans, so there are multiple infinite beings. How do you believe this is possible?

I never said that humans were infinite beings, no.

The doctrine of h*** is punishment.

The doctrine of God's omnipresence don't refer to his "influence, creations, love, light, spirit..." Rather, as is clearly stated in the scripture, there is no where we can go to escape his actual presence. Of course, this does conflict with the idea that God has a physical body like the LDS teach.

You are avoiding the questions. I have yet to see you even address any of the ones I have asked you.

And if you think h*** and Sheol are the same thing, then you are mistaken.

I haven't avoided any questions. I have been away for the weekend, and attempted to post with my phone, so I'm sorry if I missed a question. Please tell me which post you are referring to.

As to h*** and Sheol being the same, no. However, the doctrine of God's Omnipresence doesn't mean that God's pleasure is everywhere.

An infinite being only needs to be infinite in one dimension to be infinite (say time for example). There is no requirement for an infinite being to be infinite in all possible dimensions.

Say God is infinite in "being" can there be another, in your mind?

You keep wanting to take "h***" to mean (Sheol) rather than Gehenna. Why is that?

So, is God in Gehenna? Was He in Hitler's (or Stalin's) heart?

Also, as I mentioned just above. Why did Jesus teach that God was in heaven, instead of teaching that He was everywhere?

Of course God sustained Hitler and Stalin's life, just like he does everyone. And God's presence was there, just as it is today.

[altersteve]

Hughes, I submit that you are in fact avoiding the questions. Once again, "let us reason together" through this issue:

You claim that God is literally in all places, and that we cannot go anywhere to avoid His presence. That would mean that God would be present in h***. However, if that were the case, then h*** would not be h***, since those in h*** are separated from the presence of God, as the scriptures so clearly tell us. H***, therefore, cannot contain God's presence in any form, which would mean that God cannot have created h***. It would then follow that h*** is, as the Latter-day Saints declare, a lack of a place completely where God does not send us, but where we send ourselves when we choose, by our own free will, to separate ourselves from Him. Your position contradicts itself.

Please address these points directly instead of dismissing my reasoning and saying that I'm simply making presumptions. Argue with me like you mean it.

Edited July 26, 2011 by altersteve

[zerinus]

It's clear logic. Omni-anything means all encompassing, whether that is presence, knowledge, etc. If there is more than one omni, that presence, knowledge, etc, has been divided between however many omni's you have going, making them logically, omni-nothing.

That is a totally illogical assertion. There is simply no reason to it. If I know everything, and my neighbour knows everything, why should that be logically impossible? For a reasoning to be valid there must be logical connection between the premises and the conclusion. I see no logical connection here. Why couldn't my neighbour and I both know everything at the same time--assuming it possible for someone to know everything?

Edited July 26, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I'm of the impression that God is infinite in his "being" so, I'm not sure the density of "being", but I'm pretty sure too beings don't occupy the same space, which means only one infinite being can exist, logically.

And I am of the impression that you don't know what you are talking about, and what is worse, you don't care either. You don't know what it means to be "infinite in his being," neither do I, nor does anybody else. Neither has God declared any such thing about Himself, in scripture or anywhere else.

[Flyonthewall]

...

As to h*** and Sheol being the same, no. However, the doctrine of God's Omnipresence doesn't mean that God's pleasure is everywhere.

...

I was under the understanding that God is not pieced out. God's pleasure cannot be left behind. Everything that IS God stays with Him. God IS love, so God cannot leave His love behind.

Those that are sent to he11, are excluded from the presense of God...now you are saying that God is in he11 also. Isn't God's presence what makes heaven different than he11? If God is in both places, then one is not different than the other.

[Storm Rider]

Am I missing something. Is there something wrong with spelling "h***" out? I have seen people who felt it necessary to spell God, G*d, but this is the first time that I have encountered this. What's up with that? My curiosity runs wild and I don't like any of the deductions I have made so far.

[LeSellers]

Am I missing something. Is there something wrong with spelling "h***" out? I have seen people who felt it necessary to spell God, G*d, but this is the first time that I have encountered this. What's up with that? My curiosity runs wild and I don't like any of the deductions I have made so far.

Unfortunately, "he11" (I use digits for the Ls) is filtered out. In a religious forum that seems silly, but it can be abused, just as "God" or "Christ" can be. We can't cite any of D|ckens' works, either. Charles becomes ****ens.

Nor can we quote Bible passages about donkeys or roosters.

Lehi

Edited July 26, 2011 by LeSellers