The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

danielwoods · October 16, 2015

It is very unfortunate that you have all along refused to engage the actual debate herewith. You keep repeating the same issues which have come up and been dealt with effectively.

It isn't that there is anything wrong with faith. It is only that you substitute a fairy faith for the real thing, daniel, and do not ask the hard questions about whether one may even use language if one doesn't know it well enough to understand elementary concepts. God gave us brains presumably so that we would use them. If we use them irresponsibly then that is a disappointment to God, and guarantees failure in our humble attempts to understand anything at all -- not to mention specialized knowledge. Since you have made no attempt to inform yourself about the nature of this debate, you have no chance of understanding it.

It's sad that you resort to this sort of condescension when someone simply disagrees with you.

Flyonthewall · October 16, 2015

Ex nihilo is an important Christian doctrine that distinguishes Christianity from Greek philosophy and gnosticism, which hold that matter is eternal. To cite just one Christian church father, Irenaeus of Lyon (disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John and appointed by John to the bishopric in Smyrna) asserted that ex nihilo creation of matter is of apostolic origin. He did so in his refutation of the gnostic systems of Basilides and Valentinus (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies). The choice is between Greek philosophy's eternal matter and Christianity's created matter. As Irenaeus points out, the former elevates matter to the level of God and limits God; the latter preserves God's sovereignty over His creation.

Justin Martyr had this to say:

CHAPTER X -- HOW GOD IS TO BE SERVED.
But we have received by tradition that God does not need the material offerings which men can give, seeing, indeed, that He Himself is the provider of all things. And we have been taught, and are convinced, and do believe, that He accepts those only who imitate the excellences which reside in Him, temperance, and justice, and philanthropy, and as many virtues as are peculiar to a God who is called by no proper name. And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy, and so we have received--of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering. For as in the beginning He created us when we were not, so do we consider that, in like manner, those who choose what is pleasing to Him are, on account of their choice, deemed worthy of incorruption and of fellowship with Him. For the coming into being at first was not in our own power; and in order that we may follow those things which please Him, choosing them by means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith. And we think it for the advantage of all men that they are not restrained from learning these things, but are even urged thereto. For the restraint which human laws could not effect, the Word, inasmuch as He is divine, would have effected, had not the wicked demons, taking as their ally the lust of wickedness which is in every man, and which draws variously to all manner of vice, scattered many false and profane accusations, none of which attach to us.

What is this "unformed matter" that is spoke of?

mfbukowski · October 16, 2015

The only way to escape the cause/effect chain, is to have no original cause - no beginning.
If there is a beginning, all of the effects can be traced back to the original cause.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

It's either ex-nihilo creation, in which God really did create evil,
or it is organizational/transformational creation - in which case God "transforms" darkness into light, and transforms evil.

OR a mistranslation of what some scribe wrote under the name of Isaiah which we have, because of presentism, totally misunderstood what the scribe was even saying.

sigh.

and around it goes and will forever until someone closes the thread. Words words words. Nada mas. :lazy:

Spammer · October 16, 2015

Justin Martyr had this to say:
What is this "unformed matter" that is spoke of?

Yes, St. Justin Martyr was influenced by Greek philosophy. Unlike Irenaeus, who was born into the Church, Justin was a philosopher in the Platonist school before his conversion to Catholic Christianity. His "unformed matter" is the eternal matter of Platonism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and Mormonism, a concept he brought with him from his earlier philosophical interests. He wasn't the only Greek pagan who was converted to Christianity that brought his prior commitment to Plato with him into the church, as Irenaeus' struggle against Platonism 20-30 years later shows. Edited October 16, 2015 by Spammer

Flyonthewall · October 16, 2015

Yes, St. Justin Martyr was influenced by Greek philosophy. Unlike Irenaeus, who was born into the Church, Justin was a philosopher in the Platonist school before his conversion to Catholic Christianity. His "unformed matter" is the eternal matter of Platonism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and Mormonism, a concept he brought with him from his earlier philosophical interests. He wasn't the only Greek pagan who was converted to Christianity that brought his prior commitment to Plato with him into the church, as Irenaeus' struggle against Platonism 20-30 years later shows.

So was he a heretic for his platonist views? or a Saint? Wasn't this a heresy that was fought against? How did this slip through? Was his First apology heretical in nature?

mfbukowski · October 16, 2015

Yes, St. Justin Martyr was influenced by Greek philosophy. Unlike Irenaeus, who was born into the Church, Justin was a philosopher in the Platonist school before his conversion to Catholic Christianity. His "unformed matter" is the eternal matter of Platonism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and Mormonism, a concept he brought with him from his earlier philosophical interests. He wasn't the only Greek pagan who was converted to Christianity that brought his prior commitment to Plato with him into the church, as Irenaeus' struggle against Platonism 20-30 years later shows.

Sorry dude, but totally wrong

For Plato, matter as we know it is illusion. It is definitely not "eternal" nor is it even "real".

Aristotle is a different story.

Eternal matter for Plato is a non-sequitur

Edited October 16, 2015 by mfbukowski

mfbukowski · October 16, 2015

Here's a good article on it.

For Plato, what we call "matter" is/are simply illusory combinations of different forms of earth, air, fire, and water.

He deduces that because what is "real" cannot change - but matter changes. Water becomes ice or steam. Bodies disintegrate. For him clearly matter is an illusion because of change. What is real and unchanging are the forms which make up matter

http://patrick.maher1.net/317/lectures/plato3.pdf

Spammer · October 16, 2015

So was he a heretic for his platonist views? or a Saint? Wasn't this a heresy that was fought against? How did this slip through? Was his First apology heretical in nature?

Sainthood is determined by holiness of life, in Justin's case by laying down his life for Christ. Justin is a saint who, prior to his martyrdom, adhered to a view that was later formally declared to be heretical by an ecumenical council of the church. In all other respects Justin's views were fully orthodox and yes, he's a saint and not a heretic. We can still read and find value in his otherwise very orthodox writings. This is not unusual. Origin is another saint whose writings were deemed as partially heretical. It's not a problem for us, since dogma is determined through church councils, not through perfect agreement among church fathers, just as in Mormonism prophets can contradict each other and the church is still true.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Spammer

Spammer · October 16, 2015

delete

Edited October 17, 2015 by Spammer

Spammer · October 17, 2015

Here's a good article on it.
For Plato, what we call "matter" is/are simply illusory combinations of different forms of earth, air, fire, and water.
He deduces that because what is "real" cannot change - but matter changes. Water becomes ice or steam. Bodies disintegrate. For him clearly matter is an illusion because of change. What is real and unchanging are the forms which make up matter
http://patrick.maher1.net/317/lectures/plato3.pdf

True, but Plato did not necessarily advocate ex nihilo. Yes, Plato believed form is ontologically prior and existed in an abstract, eternal realm, and denied that the changing world of element could exist independently from eternal form, hence the cosmos' relative unreality, but that's not to say eternal form is imposed on elements created by the Demiurge out of nothing. Rather, the unformed chaotic 'stuff' the Demiurge works with is just as pre-existent as form, although a given actualization of formed 'stuff' in the cosmos is not eternal and it is this particular instantiation that is illusory since it is subject to change and does not persist. But the underlying 'stuff' does persist. Thus for Plato creation is organization of the pre-existent chaos by the Demiurge, who organizes chaos through the imposition of form on that stuff. At least this is how I've always understood Plato's Timaeus. I guess I'll have to re-read the Timaeus. I'm just an armchair consumer of philosophical writings and I definitely want to get it right. Thanks for the link. It seems there's some disagreement among scholars over whether Plato taught that something besides form is pre-existent. This Stanford link isn't the only place where I've come across descriptions of eternal matter in Plato.

http://plato.stanfor.../plato-timaeus/

Edited October 17, 2015 by Spammer

mfbukowski · October 17, 2015

"Rather, the unformed chaotic 'stuff' the Demiurge works with is just as pre-existent as form, although a given actualization of formed 'stuff' in the cosmos is not eternal and it is this particular instantiation that is illusory since it is subject to change and does not persist. But the underlying 'stuff' does persist. Thus for Plato creation is organization of the pre-existent chaos by the Demiurge, who organizes chaos through the imposition of form on that stuff. "

Quote function down again.

I am not buying it.

Can you show me something from the Timaeus?

Anakin7 · October 17, 2015

I am no Brainiac on this creation out of chaos/nothing discussion but I have been told by a # of "christians" in the past that told me God created the Universe out of matter no bigger that the head of a pin, if so it is still matter. And if all there was was darkness before creation the question is if "darkness" is matter, if so God took the dark matter and changed it into a different material in physical reality and recreated it into what we see/observe today. Just my thoughts.

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

PeterPear · October 17, 2015

1 Nephi 17:50 is a "creation" scripture:

"And I said unto them: If God had commanded me to do all things I could do them. If he should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, it should be earth; and if I should say it, it would be done."

There's nothing ex nihilo about it. God would have modified the existing elements and created earth from water.

Hmmmm... Sounds like Genesis 1:2.

Spammer · October 17, 2015

"Rather, the unformed chaotic 'stuff' the Demiurge works with is just as pre-existent as form, although a given actualization of formed 'stuff' in the cosmos is not eternal and it is this particular instantiation that is illusory since it is subject to change and does not persist. But the underlying 'stuff' does persist. Thus for Plato creation is organization of the pre-existent chaos by the Demiurge, who organizes chaos through the imposition of form on that stuff. "
Quote function down again.
I am not buying it.
Can you show me something from the Timaeus?

Creation in the Timaeus is the work of the demiurge (section 28), who brings order and harmony out of disorder (30a, 53,a-b, 69b-c), or who organizes or imposes a structure on preexistent chaos ('matter' unorganized). Sections 30, 48-53, and 69 contain the exposition on the process.

For example, from section 53, which describes the process whereby the first step in organizing primordial chaos (matter unorganized) is marking out and imposing the four kinds of geometrical forms (Plato's 'atoms') on it:

"So it was also with the Four Kinds when shaken by the Recipient: her motion, like an instrument which causes shaking, was separating farthest from one another the dissimilar, and pushing most closely together the similar; wherefore also these Kinds occupied different places even before that the Universe was organized and generated out of them. Before that time, in truth, all these things were in a state devoid of reason or measure, but when the work of setting in order this Universe was being undertaken, [53b] fire and water and earth and air, although possessing some traces of their own nature, were yet so disposed as everything is likely to be in the absence of God; and inasmuch as this was then their natural condition, God began by first marking them out into shapes by means of forms and numbers. And that God constructed them, so far as He could, to be as fair and good as possible, whereas they had been otherwise..."

The disordered state of the universe, the state before time when "all these things were in a state devoid of reason or measure", is the preexistent chaos upon which the Demiurge imposes the mathematical forms to initiate the organization. From the Stanford piece below, "The argument from 47e3 to 52d4 gives Timaeus both the spatial matrix in which to situate, and the material substratum from which to constitute, the universe that he will fashion after its eternal model.The fashioning, however, is the process of bringing order to what was, prior to and apart from the Craftsman's intervention, a thoroughly disorderly state of affairs, and so the physical account begins with a description of that disorderly, “god-forsaken” (53b3–4) initial state."

I see no ex nihilo in the Timaeus.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Tim.+53&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0180

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/

Edited October 17, 2015 by Spammer

Spammer · October 17, 2015

1 Nephi 17:50 is a "creation" scripture:
"And I said unto them: If God had commanded me to do all things I could do them. If he should command me that I should say unto this water, be thou earth, it should be earth; and if I should say it, it would be done."
There's nothing ex nihilo about it. God would have modified the existing elements and created earth from water.
Hmmmm... Sounds like Genesis 1:2.

Right. Sounds very similar to what Plato describes in Timaeus 53. This is creation from preexistent materials, creatio ex materia.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Spammer

3DOP · October 17, 2015

Right. Sounds very similar to what Plato describes in Timaeus 53. This is creation from preexistent materials, creatio ex materia.

Spammer I appreciate your much needed input. Although I am totally confident that the Fathers of the Church consulted Apostolic revelation as opposed to Plato for the ex nihilo doctrine, I am never able to follow it up as you have, by demonstrating that Hellenistic philosophy in general, and Platonism is particular, is not necessarily ex nihilo. I am glad we have one "armchair philosopher" who can at least cast some doubt on the charges that the Fathers sacrificed Scripture and Tradition for the writings of Greek philosophy.

3DOP

Spammer · October 17, 2015

Spammer I appreciate your much needed input. Although I am totally confident that the Fathers of the Church consulted Apostolic revelation as opposed to Plato for the ex nihilo doctrine, I am never able to follow it up as you have, by demonstrating that Hellenistic philosophy in general, and Platonism is particular, is not necessarily ex nihilo. I am glad we have one "armchair philosopher" who can at least cast some doubt on the charges that the Fathers sacrificed Scripture and Tradition for the writings of Greek philosophy.
3DOP

Thanks, Rory.

stephenpurdy · October 18, 2015

'Since God did not create (even indirectly) any of the actual choices of the will, he did not create whatever it is in the will that is the cause of the actual choices we make.'
Unless God creates whatever it is in the will that chooses with the ability to make choices that are self-existent or self-originated.

Yet in mainstream Christianity, ONLY God is "self-existent".

This is the point that Daniel continues to miss as well.

God cannot cause an uncaused cause. Because, by it's very definition, an uncaused cause is something that was not caused by anything else.

Ex nihilo creation developed from Greek philosophical monotheism, and its "unmoved mover" (primum movens). By definition, there was only one single substance that moved everything else, but it itself was not moved by any other substance.

-Stephen

stephenpurdy · October 18, 2015

Unless God created it with the ability to make moral choices independent of the creator. At which point those choices are not determined by God and not the responsibility of the creator.

Let me spell this out again. 50th time is the charm.

Our choices are either

1) NOT determined by our characteristics, nature, essence, etc.

2) Determined by our characteristics, nature, essence, etc.

To this, Mark Hausam said: "Even proponents of libertarian freedom will admit, although paradoxically, that the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are."

Concerning Ex Nihilo theology:

If you answer number 1, then each individual cannot be culpable for "choices" that they did not fundamentally make.

If you answer number 2, then God is culpable because God created our characteristics, nature, essence from God's very own mind

God creating ignorant and disobedient beings and then punishing them for being ignorant and disobedient is not an acceptable position, but that is precisely what your theology demands.

-Stephen

Spammer · October 18, 2015

Yet in mainstream Christianity, ONLY God is "self-existent".

This is the point that Daniel continues to miss as well.

God cannot cause an uncaused cause. Because, by it's very definition, an uncaused cause is something that was not caused by anything else.

Ex nihilo creation developed from Greek philosophical monotheism, and its "unmoved mover" (primum movens). By definition, there was only one single substance that moved everything else, but it itself was not moved by any other substance.

-Stephen

The human will is both created and self-determining. Self-existent and self-determining are distinct. The created will is both caused and self-determining. God created the human will and then caused a break in the subsequent causal chain by assigning a self-determining property to the created will. God can do that because, you know, he's God. He's the creator of matter, consciousness, and will, not matter's organizer, and as such God is not subject to causation and the laws of physics.

Do you have the name of a Greek philosopher whose cosmology entails ex nihilo and who described it as such? I'm very interested in how your claim is grounded. For now, I'm not at all interested in what any scholar has to say about it, I'd just like to know the ancient source that grounds such a claim. Aristotle's cosmology includes a First Cause and Unmoved Mover, but he argues for the existence of eternal matter and the impossibility of ex nihilo, so it couldn't have been him. So which Greek philosopher argued for ex nihilo? If you don't know, can you provide a scholarly reference? I'd like to check the footnotes and see whether the scholar cites a Greek philosopher so I can read what was written for myself. Thanks.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Spammer

Spammer · October 18, 2015

God creating ignorant and disobedient beings and then punishing them for being ignorant and disobedient is not an acceptable position, but that is precisely what your theology demands.

-Stephen

Who in the Christian tradition teaches that God created ignorant and disobedient beings? I've never heard of such a thing.

mfbukowski · October 18, 2015

Creation in the Timaeus is the work of the demiurge (section 28), who brings order and harmony out of disorder (30a, 53,a-b, 69b-c), or who organizes or imposes a structure on preexistent chaos ('matter' unorganized). Sections 30, 48-53, and 69 contain the exposition on the process.

For example, from section 53, which describes the process whereby the first step in organizing primordial chaos (matter unorganized) is marking out and imposing the four kinds of geometrical forms (Plato's 'atoms') on it:

"So it was also with the Four Kinds when shaken by the Recipient: her motion, like an instrument which causes shaking, was separating farthest from one another the dissimilar, and pushing most closely together the similar; wherefore also these Kinds occupied different places even before that the Universe was organized and generated out of them. Before that time, in truth, all these things were in a state devoid of reason or measure, but when the work of setting in order this Universe was being undertaken, [53b] fire and water and earth and air, although possessing some traces of their own nature, were yet so disposed as everything is likely to be in the absence of God; and inasmuch as this was then their natural condition, God began by first marking them out into shapes by means of forms and numbers. And that God constructed them, so far as He could, to be as fair and good as possible, whereas they had been otherwise..."

The disordered state of the universe, the state before time when "all these things were in a state devoid of reason or measure", is the preexistent chaos upon which the Demiurge imposes the mathematical forms to initiate the organization. From the Stanford piece below, "The argument from 47e3 to 52d4 gives Timaeus both the spatial matrix in which to situate, and the material substratum from which to constitute, the universe that he will fashion after its eternal model.The fashioning, however, is the process of bringing order to what was, prior to and apart from the Craftsman's intervention, a thoroughly disorderly state of affairs, and so the physical account begins with a description of that disorderly, “god-forsaken” (53b3–4) initial state."

I see no ex nihilo in the Timaeus.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Tim.+53&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0180

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/

Well I must thank you for your fine effort and a great post. I really learned something today, and spent some time re-reading sections of the Timaeus which I have not read for probably 40 years. I spent time reading secondary sources as well and found it all quite enlightening.

I think it is clear that nearly any interpretation of this work projecting back a Christian view of pre-existent matter or ex nihilo - either one- is very hazardous. I think it is presentism to attribute any of these views to Plato.

Yes, of course he says what you say he says, but only after explaining clearly that the story he is about to tell is just a story, and not a representation of the truth, which is impossible to explain among sensible beings like ourselves.

First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created. The work of the creator, whenever he looks to the unchangeable and fashions the form and nature of his work after an unchangeable pattern, must necessarily be made fair and perfect; but when he looks to the created only, and uses a created pattern, it is not fair or perfect. Was the heaven then or the world, whether called by this or by any other more appropriate name-assuming the name, I am asking a question which has to be asked at the beginning of an enquiry about anything-was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning? or created, and had it a beginning? Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and having a body, and therefore sensible; and all sensible things are apprehended by opinion and sense and are in a process of creation and created. Now that which is created must, as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause. But the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible. And there is still a question to be asked about him: Which of the patterns had the artificer in view when he made the world-the pattern of the unchangeable, or of that which is created? If the world be indeed fair and the artificer good, it is manifest that he must have looked to that which is eternal; but if what cannot be said without blasphemy is true, then to the created pattern. Every one will see that he must have looked to, the eternal; for the world is the fairest of creations and he is the best of causes. And having been created in this way, the world has been framed in the likeness of that which is apprehended by reason and mind and is unchangeable, and must therefore of necessity, if this is admitted, be a copy of something. Now it is all-important that the beginning of everything should be according to nature. And in speaking of the copy and the original we may assume that words are akin to the matter which they describe; when they relate to the lasting and permanent and intelligible, they ought to be lasting and unalterable, and, as far as their nature allows, irrefutable and immovable-nothing less. But when they express only the copy or likeness and not the eternal things themselves, they need only be likely and analogous to the real words. As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If then, Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others; for we must remember that I who am the speaker, and you who are the judges, are only mortal men, and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and enquire no further.
Soc. Excellent, Timaeus; and we will do precisely as you bid us. The prelude is charming, and is already accepted by us-may we beg of you to proceed to the strain?

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/timaeus.html

So what follows is a "tale" which is the best that can be wished for among "mortal men"

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this:

In his prefatory remarks Timaeus describes the account he is about to give as a “likely account” (eikôs logos) or “likely story” (eikôs muthos).^[6] The description is a play on words: the subject of account is itself an “image” (eikôn) and, Timaeus avers, “the accounts we give of things [should] have the same character as the subjects they set forth” (29b3–5). Fashioned after an unchanging and eternal model—a possible subject of a definitive and exact account—the universe as a thing that becomes is shifting and unstable, and hence any account given of it will be similarly lacking in complete accuracy and consistency (29c4–7). This apology is clearly meant to lower our expectations: the account is no more than likely. At the same time, Timaeus says he will strive to give an account that is “no less likely than anyone else's” (or “any other [account]”) (29c7– and, while the account cannot be grasped by understanding (nous, 29b6—the faculty for apprehending unchanging truths), it nevertheless merits our “confidence” (pistis, 29c3). As Timaeus' account proceeds, we are frequently reminded of its “likely” character,^[7] and both the negative and positive connotations of that characterization should be kept in mind.
The account, then, is presented as reasonable, thus meriting our confidence, but neither definitive nor complete (cf. 68b6–, and thus open to possible revision (cf. 54b1–2, 55d4–6). A definitive account of these matters eludes humans (29d1) and is available only to a god (53d4–7).^[8] It has sometimes been argued that the qualification of the account as “merely likely” supports a metaphorical reading of the cosmology. This, however, is a mistake; it is not easy to see how the distinction between an exact and definitive versus a reliable but revisable account maps on to the distinction between a literal versus a metaphorical account. The contrast should rather be seen as one between apodeictic certainty (about intelligible matters) and plausibility^[9] (about empirical matters). To the extent that the subject of the account is a thing that becomes rather than a thing that is, as well as a thing that is perceptible rather than a thing that is intelligible, the account will be no more than likely. To the extent that it is beautiful and ordered, modeled after a perfect reality and fashioned by a most excellent maker, the account will be no less than likely.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-timaeus/

So I think that any interpretation which casts Plato in some kind of Christian context at all- either way, as if he believed or argued for one position or another- is highly suspect. He says that any descriptions he comes up with are not authoritative but simply "tales" that do not represent "reality"

But I really do thank you for the opportunity to do a little research and come to my own conclusions. I hope we get to talk about Florensky sometime.

mfbukowski · October 18, 2015

I see no ex nihilo in the Timaeus.

It could be interpreted either way.

Clearly he states- possibly figuratively, it's hard to say for sure, that God (Demiurge or Craftsman) creates the universe. How he does it or the timing is stated to be simply a "tale" which is "probable".

I don't see ex nihilo either, nor do I see pre-existence per se. God gives order to primeval chaos. That is a long way from "pre-existent matter" especially when matter is an illusion.

But I won't argue about it. It's open to interpretation.

mfbukowski · October 18, 2015

Let me spell this out again. 50th time is the charm.

Our choices are either

1) NOT determined by our characteristics, nature, essence, etc.

2) Determined by our characteristics, nature, essence, etc.

To this, Mark Hausam said: "Even proponents of libertarian freedom will admit, although paradoxically, that the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are."

Concerning Ex Nihilo theology:

If you answer number 1, then each individual cannot be culpable for "choices" that they did not fundamentally make.

If you answer number 2, then God is culpable because God created our characteristics, nature, essence from God's very own mind

God creating ignorant and disobedient beings and then punishing them for being ignorant and disobedient is not an acceptable position, but that is precisely what your theology demands.

-Stephen

This is embarrassingly oversimplified and insulting.

Causes cannot even be clearly defined much less imputed to God. Read some Hume please. http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

Your position is not a strong one and does not represent the LDS position well.

Gilbert · October 18, 2015

God does not "create" in the sense that we generally use the term: "to bring something into existence." What he does do is organize. He uses his omni-everything to influence existing materials and intelligences to bring about his purposes. Priesthood power (God's power) can never be used in an act of coercion, only through persuasion. Our present existence is the product of God's ability to help persuade us to choose who we are.

God did not make us, he taught us. Free will can only exist in the presence of truth/knowledge. It is no coincidence that we are referred to in our earliest state as intelligences. Paul taught that the truth will set us free. Free what? Free to be. From the very beginning God has sought to infuse in us the knowledge and understanding we need to become. Become what? As he is, onmiscient. Why? Because that is eternal life, "being" at it's apex. We cannot be saved in ignorance.

On the other side, standing in opposition to God and agency, he have Satan. He sought to take away man's agency. How? Through the limitation and distortion of truth. He is the Father of ALL lies. Hence the reason why listening to Satan leads to captivity.

When Adam and Eve were placed in the garden they arrived there as self-existing beings, trained and tutored by God, willingly following the plan organized by Him. While their bodies may have been organized to house their spirits, their spirits were the same spirits as before. Once placed their God promised to give them truth. Why? Because the veil of ignorance they labored under would not allow them to progress. Satan, not knowing the mind of God and seeking to frustrate God's plans, played right into God's hands by convincing Adam and Eve to do the very thing that would give them the knowledge they needed to progress. Having their eyes "opened" to good and evil God was then able to pick right up where he left off in the premortal world by sending messengers to teach them truth.

So the relationship between God and his "creation" is very much the same as experienced by parents and their children here on earth. Parents, while exercising great influence over, cannot say they created the essence of their child. Each child comes with his or her's own personality. Parents seek to mold their children by teaching them, imparting truth and wisdom. But at the end of the day the child chooses who he/she will be.

The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content