Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[stemelbow]

So, you don't think that foreknowledge exists?

God can't foreknow what people will do, and prophecy based on that foreknowledge?

I believe foreknowledge exists. I don't think you're interested in discussing this. You keep ignoring my questions to try and turn the subject around. I'm not sure why. But it doesn't matter. I'm pointing out the logical problem of your beliefs. For me, I understand that when faced with problems like this, it si common for the believer to ignore it. I mean it's not as if there are no problems with my beliefs. So it seems that is what you have done. And that's cool with me. Faith is beyond our ability to reason. It just is. Indeed, faith is at times referred to as evidence for the things we can't see. I suspect there may be some reason to use it as evidence for things we can't explain too.

Have fun. I think we've come full circle here. I don't know if it matters too much if you are wrong Everybody on this planet it wrong somehow, in some way. So it's bound to happen frequently on these boards.

[danielwoods]

I believe foreknowledge exists. I don't think you're interested in discussing this. You keep ignoring my questions to try and turn the subject around. I'm not sure why. But it doesn't matter. I'm pointing out the logical problem of your beliefs. For me, I understand that when faced with problems like this, it si common for the believer to ignore it. I mean it's not as if there are no problems with my beliefs. So it seems that is what you have done. And that's cool with me. Faith is beyond our ability to reason. It just is. Indeed, faith is at times referred to as evidence for the things we can't see. I suspect there may be some reason to use it as evidence for things we can't explain too.

Have fun. I think we've come full circle here. I don't know if it matters too much if you are wrong Everybody on this planet it wrong somehow, in some way. So it's bound to happen frequently on these boards.

Your claim that my beliefs have logical problems are only true if foreknowledge equals predestination. That was my point, and why I asked.

[mfbukowski]

If God is subject to Laws it is a massive difference to Him actually setting the laws. Its the difference between their being one God and many, and our Heavenly Father having a heavenly Father and so on, its the difference between Mormonism and Christianity.

Ha!

What you have discovered is that there IS no difference, but this nuance in language which has become a gulf in theology

Are you really ready to defend the substance metaphysics behind the Trinity?

It's the same problem- one or many

Edited August 12, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ha!

What you have discovered is that there IS no difference, but this nuance in language which has become a gulf in theology

Are you really ready to defend the substance metaphysics behind the Trinity?

It's the same problem- one or many

Ha. If you do start a new thread. Because I would love to discuss the metaphysics of the Trinity and the nuance of languauge.

[MrG]

Ha!

What you have discovered is that there IS no difference, but this nuance in language which has become a gulf in theology

Are you really ready to defend the substance metaphysics behind the Trinity?

It's the same problem- one or many

No I'm just not seeing that at all, I still see the difference massive

Regarding your last question maybe sometime but not this week

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So my question comes from the earlier refrenced 5 points. If man can do nothing of him self, in otherwords it seems that he cannot even have faith God has to give it to him, then would not God be the ultimate deciding factor in who is saved or not? I know this has been asked. But how does God decide who is saved and who isn't? And what is the purpose of salvation?

Edited August 12, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Stone holm]

So, you don't think that foreknowledge exists?

God can't foreknow what people will do, and prophecy based on that foreknowledge?

I prefer the Harry Seldon approach, you can make certain prophecies based on a macro understanding. In other words, given the number of people on the planet at a certain time, with a certain number of influences, then some person out there is going to do X and that is going to cause Y to happen with a pretty darn closeness to 100%, and if it doesn't happen in a rare instance you give it a little nudge to make sure it does happen. That means there is a lot of redundancy in the situation so if A fails to do something that needs to be done, there is always B waiting in the wings to either do something nice or something evil. So with the knowledge and understanding that God does have He can predict certain things with considerable accuracy. And if it is off a wee bit, well we make up excuses anyway for it not happening ---.

[mfbukowski]

So my question comes from the earlier refrenced 5 points. If man can do nothing of him self, in otherwords it seems that he cannot even have faith God has to give it to him, then would not God be the ultimate deciding factor in who is saved or not? I know this has been asked. But how does God dicide who is saved and who isn't? And what is the purpose of salvation?

Sorry for the derail- I feel like I have done substance metaphysics to death here anyway, but if anyone wants to explore it further and open a new thread, I will participate.

But we LDS have used the word "salvation" ambiguously forever- for us it can mean anything from what we call "immortality"- a free gift to all- or "eternal life" which means, for us, exaltation.

I think of it as "the ability to progress" which implies what we call the "celestial kingdom".

I mean if we don't believe in original sin, and we don't believe that mankind is innately evil from birth, what is there to be "saved" FROM?

to me the answer is clear- we are saved from the loop of mundane existence to become better than what we are, and that can apply to the spirit world just as well as earth life. I honestly don't think I would be very happy sitting around on a cloud strumming my harp all day.

My whole life is about progression- to do better than before and to become more than I have ever been before- to achieve and learn and grow.

If I was in a stagnant state, I would truly need "salvation" from that kind of existence, even if it was on a much higher plane than we are now.

But admittedly, we use the term salvation ambiguously which leads to loads of confusion for our Evangelical brothers.

Oh, and I obviously don't buy that we cannot do anything of ourselves. But really I suppose I should bow out of this discussion since as I have said, I think it is based on linguistic confusion, and everyone is tired of hearing that from me anyway!

It seems we have collective amnesia around here- we have discussed the same things over and over, and someone new shows up and off we go with the same discussion for the millionth time. No progress! Help! Save me!

We need a "mormondialogue" upper division ! We lost that with the pundits section I guess.

Edited August 12, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Questing Beast]

The issue is that individual has existed for eternity. The only creation involved is the spirit and physical body. While it may be possible to take it away, free agency has inherently existed for that individual for eternity.

Back to the core problem of Existence. How do you explain that all matter, infinite and eternal, is NOT "God"? If God the Father is simply one of us, "more intelligent than they all", always existing, never caused, then GtF is not anything more than part of that never caused, always existing matter; intelligence IS matter according to JS. Fine, but don't stop there! Continue to push on the concept of never created, eternally existing, infinite matter. What exactly does that suggest? It has to be GOD, the whole ball of wax baby Is God. GtF is a finite concept in Mormon theology, because GtF arises out of never created, always existing infinite matter. What's to say an even greater god than GtF could not arise out of the same "stuff"? If matter is infinite, there is no way that a "god" arising out of it through eternal progression, could possibly know the "extent" of something that was never created, always existed and is infinite. The brush stroke cannot comprehend the whole infinitely expanding "painting". If the brush stroke creates an image of itself, and it is a glorified human being, that is still only a finite part of the infinitely expanding whole; it is never the whole. So Mormon theology only raises even less answerable questions about "who is God?" If we allow that Existence In The First Place (oh, the limitation of words) Is God, then intelligence all comes from that Source/Cause. We may never know anymore than that about Existence as Cause. But we surely know eternally more about "God" as we discover the Infinite manifestations to us that "God Is"....

[Bernard Gui]

Not at all. Rather, the nature of love is a desire to share that love because the joy increases.

If God's joy is increased by sharing with his creation, is he not then a changing God?

Before creation he was doing well, but something was missing, so he created things with which to

share his joy. This seems to be the definition of loneliness. If he is all sufficient, why the need to share?

And then to create some things in order to destroy them seems counterproductive.

[Bernard Gui]

I am just saying what the passage appears to be saying.

Is this how you understand it?

[MrG]

Is this how you understand it?

On the basis of what it says, yes

[stemelbow]

Your claim that my beliefs have logical problems are only true if foreknowledge equals predestination.

Nope. But oh well. I won't bother with repeating it all. I'll leave it as an agree to disagree thing.

[mfbukowski]

Back to the core problem of Existence. How do you explain that all matter, infinite and eternal, is NOT "God"?

Definitions and distinctions.

[Questing Beast]

Definitions and distinctions.

Well, go ahead then, I'll wait....

[danielwoods]

If God's joy is increased by sharing with his creation, is he not then a changing God?

Before creation he was doing well, but something was missing, so he created things with which to

share his joy. This seems to be the definition of loneliness. If he is all sufficient, why the need to share?

And then to create some things in order to destroy them seems counterproductive.

Does this indicate he's a changing God?

With respect to his relationships, yes. With respect to his nature, no.

Was something missing? No.

In our finite existence here on earth, it would indicate loneliness most of the time. For God it indicates a desire to share based on the foreknowledge of joy he will get and give. So it doesn't indicate loneliness but rather like someone who is an extravert who gains satisfaction from sharing his love and life.

Why the need to share? I wouldn't call it a "need" so much as a desire or his pleasure.

There is only one way to create a perfect love based on free will. That is to allow those created to actually choose the love offered. The net result is that some will reject that love, and that is their choice, and it is the cost of getting the end results of a love relationship based on free will.

Is that cost counterproductive? That is a judgement call, which it appears that God determined it was worth the cost.

[cdowis]

Back to the core problem of Existence. How do you explain that all matter, infinite and eternal, is NOT "God"?

Really? I would have to plead that it is self-evident.

If God the Father is simply one of us,

He is not "simply one of us". That is the point of the Plan of Salvation, to become perfected, to become "one with the Father". The caterpillar and the butterfly.

"more intelligent than they all", always existing, never caused, then GtF is not anything more than part of that never caused, always existing matter; intelligence IS matter according to JS.

I smell a logical fallacy -- A is B, therefore B is A.

There are different levels of intelligence. The rock has a different degree of intelligence than a human being.

Fine, but don't stop there! Continue to push on the concept of never created, eternally existing, infinite matter. What exactly does that suggest? It has to be GOD, the whole ball of wax baby Is God.

May I suggest you take a class in basic logic.

GtF is a finite concept in Mormon theology, because GtF arises out of never created, always existing infinite matter. What's to say an even greater god than GtF could not arise out of the same "stuff"? If matter is infinite, there is no way that a "god" arising out of it through eternal progression, could possibly know the "extent" of something that was never created, always existed and is infinite. The brush stroke cannot comprehend the whole infinitely expanding "painting". If the brush stroke creates an image of itself, and it is a glorified human being, that is still only a finite part of the infinitely expanding whole; it is never the whole. So Mormon theology only raises even less answerable questions about "who is God?" If we allow that Existence In The First Place (oh, the limitation of words) Is God, then intelligence all comes from that Source/Cause. We may never know anymore than that about Existence as Cause. But we surely know eternally more about "God" as we discover the Infinite manifestations to us that "God Is"....

See my suggestion above. An argument based on a false premise is flawed, regardless of an attempt at impressive rhetoric.

Put your argument in a syllogism and it will become rather obvious where it falls apart.

Edited August 12, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Since this is true. Can you answer these two questions of mine below?

Ok

danielwoods, on 11 August 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

If we existed for an eternity, as God did, what makes him greater than us? Who decided that he should be God?

He did, thru "eternal" progression.

(Note: A further explanation leads to speculation which is inappropriate and goes beyond the scope of this discussion.)

danielwoods, on 11 August 2013 - 06:10 PM, said:

I'd call our will limited to morality, not imperfect. If it's not something designed by God, then who designed it?

Nobody. It has always existed.

(Remember our discussion of natural law)

We can conclude that the plan of Satan would not have worked because it violates natural law.

Edited August 12, 2013 by cdowis

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sorry for the derail- I feel like I have done substance metaphysics to death here anyway, but if anyone wants to explore it further and open a new thread, I will participate.

But we LDS have used the word "salvation" ambiguously forever- for us it can mean anything from what we call "immortality"- a free gift to all- or "eternal life" which means, for us, exaltation.

I think of it as "the ability to progress" which implies what we call the "celestial kingdom".

I mean if we don't believe in original sin, and we don't believe that mankind is innately evil from birth, what is there to be "saved" FROM?

to me the answer is clear- we are saved from the loop of mundane existence to become better than what we are, and that can apply to the spirit world just as well as earth life. I honestly don't think I would be very happy sitting around on a cloud strumming my harp all day.

My whole life is about progression- to do better than before and to become more than I have ever been before- to achieve and learn and grow.

If I was in a stagnant state, I would truly need "salvation" from that kind of existence, even if it was on a much higher plane than we are now.

But admittedly, we use the term salvation ambiguously which leads to loads of confusion for our Evangelical brothers.

Oh, and I obviously don't buy that we cannot do anything of ourselves. But really I suppose I should bow out of this discussion since as I have said, I think it is based on linguistic confusion, and everyone is tired of hearing that from me anyway!

It seems we have collective amnesia around here- we have discussed the same things over and over, and someone new shows up and off we go with the same discussion for the millionth time. No progress! Help! Save me!

We need a "mormondialogue" upper division ! We lost that with the pundits section I guess.

I am not tired of you. Maybe others are. I only asked you to started another thread soley because this is a complex topic and to have to try and get into another even more complex topic on this thread would just be a jumble. If you think you have something to add by all means. I inivte you to share. I do agree with your assessment of what salvation means. It is about progression. And in a certain very real sence salvation does mean we are saved from stagnation. Edited August 12, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[mfbukowski]

Well, go ahead then, I'll wait....

You already answered it yourself.

... (oh, the limitation of words)....

You asked the question, and you know there is no verbal answer- or at least you did for a nanosecond when you wrote the above.

Over the centuries various legends about the life of Augustine have arisen and been given much attention.

This was possibly in many previous centuries when the word “history” was more taken to mean “that which has been heard about the past” than to be “that which factually happened in the past.”

It so happens that the English word history comes from the same source as the Italian word storia – close to the English word, story.

These legends relate to numerous parts of Augustine’s life. One of them concerns a supposed meeting by chance of Augustine and a child at the sea shore. This legend was well-known in the Middle Ages, but has no grounding in anything that Augustine himself wrote or preached.

The scene is the seashore, where there is a small pool, a little boy with a seashell, and a sandy beach on which St. Augustine , clad in his episcopal robes, is walking, pondering with difficulty the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. “Father, Son, Holy Spirit; three in one!” he muttered, shaking his head.

As he approached the little boy who was running back and forth between the sea and the pool with a seashell of water, Augustine craned his neck and asked him: “Son, what are you doing?”

“Can’t you see?” said the boy. “I’m emptying the sea into this pool!”

“Son, you can’t do that!” Augustine countered. “I will sooner empty the sea into this pool than you will manage to get the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity into your head!”

Upon saying that, the boy, who was an angel according to legend, quickly disappeared, leaving Augustine alone with the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity.

http://www.augnet.org/?ipageid=1390

Edited August 12, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

Not at all. Rather, the nature of love is a desire to share that love because the joy increases.

So, God sat in dark, and lonely nothingness for eternity, and then, suddenly decided He was going to change that by creating everything from that nothing. What cause Him to change?

[Vance]

If God is subject to Laws it is a massive difference to Him actually setting the laws. Its the difference between their being one God and many, and our Heavenly Father having a heavenly Father and so on, its the difference between Mormonism and Christianity.

Here, let me make a correction to that last part.

Its the difference between their being one God and many, and our Heavenly Father having a heavenly Father and so on, its the difference between Mormonism and Tradition Orthodox Christianity.

[MrG]

Here, let me make a correction to that last part.

Wrist slap received

[Vance]

Apologies is it didnt come across right. I am saying Adam and Eve are the first people to sin (as we know)

I think if you will look (at least at the KJV) you will not find the word "sin" associated with Eve, But rather the word "transgression". Just saying.

[MrG]

I think if you will look (at least at the KJV) you will not find the word "sin" associated with Eve, But rather the word "transgression". Just saying.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.