The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[Robert F. Smith]

The question of when life begins for us is a little different than when we are talking about Adam. He obviously didn't get slapped on the rump…

As I pointed out previously, it was Brigham Young who made it clear that Adam (in effect)  got whacked on the backside.  He and Eve were brought here from another planet.  Indeed, transmission of life is the only viable theory of so-called origin of life, since there is no origin but a continuum of eternal life.

 

The dogma that one accepts dictates the conclusions one makes at the end of the day. As was stated above, there is no instrument to test ones assumptions, so we are left making our own best guesses based on our own faith. The attack of ex nihilo comes from a point of view that has made different assumptions which also are not tested and are based on their faith.

Actually not true.  Professor Speiser, who also did the translation of Genesis for the Jewish Publication Society of America, understood Jewish dogma, and found that the text of Genesis conflicted with it.  It was only then that he stated what the Hebrew text said and invited all of us (including you) to allow the text to speak for itself.  He did not impose a view on the text (which is what you are wrongly suggesting), but allowed the evidence to tell him what it meant.  Science and logic are not the same as dogmatic presupposition.

[stephenpurdy]

Stephen:  The concept that the Universe (or anyone in it) was created "out of nothing" is not a concept found in scripture.

 

Actually it can be interpreted either way.

 

 

Sure, IF you assume that every time the scriptures says "create" , it must mean "creation out of nothing", I suppose you could "interpret" ex nihilo into the text ...

 

... of course, that leads to direct contradictions to other parts of the text.

 

First Old Testament

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqLXfWjw-lQ

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzIbLUPKgfY

 

Then New Testament

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzIbLUPKgfY

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

This is the oldest argument in the world.  I don't even know what "created characteristics" are.

 

 

In Ex Nihilo creation theology, ....   what aspect of you, what essence in you, what part of you, what characteristics did God create?

 

With "creation out of nothing" was there any part of you that existed prior to God's creating you?

 

 

I asked Daniel, "Can God cause an uncaused cause?"

 

He attempts to answer "yes".

 

This is precisely what Mark Hausam was getting at with Arminians,

 

"Therefore, if God were the creator of our being or the essence of who we are, as a logically consistent account of creation ex nihilo would affirm, he would also be the creator and cause, at least indirectly, of the actual choices we make. But since these cannot be causally traced back to God, in Arminianism, the essence of who we are that our choices flow from, and thus reveal and express, must also be unable to be traced back to God or his creative activity. Whatever God created ex nihilo when he created human beings, he thus did not create that which constitutes the real essence of our being and character. So we can see that, in Arminian theology, the main implications of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo are negated and the doctrine itself is thus, in effect, relegated to practical unimportance, since the most important part of who we are, that which defines our primary essence, is not created by God, but is self-existent or self-created appropriate for such entities in Arminianism, although Arminians, being less consistent and developed in their theology, usually do not clearly see this and avoid the term because of its obvious clash with more classical theistic aspects of their thinking that they do not want to wholly or explicitly jettison."

 

-Stephen

Edited July 1, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

As I pointed out previously, it was Brigham Young who made it clear that Adam (in effect)  got whacked on the backside.  He and Eve were brought here from another planet.  Indeed, transmission of life is the only viable theory of so-called origin of life, since there is no origin but a continuum of eternal life.

 

 

I should point out , that not everything that Brigham said is necessarily true.  There was speculation and opinion.   Furthermore, his words can be misinterpreted as well.

 

Was Adam brought from another "planet"  ... or another "world"?  The "spirit world"?

 

 

You are right that there is a theory in LDS circles which says that the "dust of the earth" was gathered from the trees in the garden, and the Parents of the human race ate from the trees in the garden in order to organize (by means of procreation) the body of Adam.

 

Speculation of course ... but possible.

 

 

Professor Speiser, who also did the translation of Genesis for the Jewish Publication Society of America, understood Jewish dogma, and found that the text of Genesis conflicted with it.  It was only then that he stated what the Hebrew text said and invited all of us (including you) to allow the text to speak for itself.  He did not impose a view on the text (which is what you are wrongly suggesting), but allowed the evidence to tell him what it meant. 

 

He isn't the only one.

 

-Stephen

Edited July 1, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[mfbukowski]

In Ex Nihilo creation theology, ....   what aspect of you, what essence in you, what part of you, what characteristics did God create?

 

With "creation out of nothing" was there any part of you that existed prior to God's creating you?

 

 

I asked Daniel, "Can God cause an uncaused cause?"

 

He attempts to answer "yes".

 

This is precisely what Mark Hausam was getting at with Arminians,

 

"Therefore, if God were the creator of our being or the essence of who we are, as a logically consistent account of creation ex nihilo would affirm, he would also be the creator and cause, at least indirectly, of the actual choices we make. But since these cannot be causally traced back to God, in Arminianism, the essence of who we are that our choices flow from, and thus reveal and express, must also be unable to be traced back to God or his creative activity. Whatever God created ex nihilo when he created human beings, he thus did not create that which constitutes the real essence of our being and character. So we can see that, in Arminian theology, the main implications of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo are negated and the doctrine itself is thus, in effect, relegated to practical unimportance, since the most important part of who we are, that which defines our primary essence, is not created by God, but is self-existent or self-created appropriate for such entities in Arminianism, although Arminians, being less consistent and developed in their theology, usually do not clearly see this and avoid the term because of its obvious clash with more classical theistic aspects of their thinking that they do not want to wholly or explicitly jettison."

 

-Stephen

There is no such thing as "essence"

 

How much does it weigh?  Where is it?  You sound like a trinitarian.

 

WHY DO YOU USE PRE-RESTORATION TERMINOLOGY?  You are wasting your time playing their game. 

Edited because I was not being civil. I apologize.

Edited July 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[stephenpurdy]

There is no such thing as "essence"

 

How much does it weigh?  Where is it?  You sound like a trinitarian.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter what you call it. 

 

Don't you get it?

 

In Ex Nihilo theology, only a single substance/being existed .... God. 

 

 

Anything else that was created , whether you call it "essence" or not, ANYTHING ELSE that exists as of creation, was created from God's own mind.  Ex nihilo allows for no other alternative.

 

That is why it can be said, that with creation "out of nothing", there is no part of you that was not created by God.  God created every aspect of your being.  God created every minutia of who and what you are.  There is no avoiding it.

 

 

 

WHY DO YOU USE PRE-RESTORATION TERMINOLOGY?  You are wasting your time playing their game.  Sectarianism is dead, but you (plural) keep it alive with this .............. garbage.

 

Is "sectarianism" dead?

 

There are more "sectarians" than there are Mormons, the last time I checked.

 

 

-stephen

Edited July 1, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[Robert F. Smith]

...........................................................................  

 

He isn't the only one.

..........................................

True enough, Stephen, but his was the first commentary I had ever read on the subject back in 1964, and he gets pride of place in my mind for what everyone else is now saying.

[Tsuzuki]

There is no such thing as "essence"

 

How much does it weigh?  Where is it?  You sound like a trinitarian.

You can't weigh or locate "purpose" either, but that's the standard LDS view of the Godhead's unity. Substance, essence, and purpose are all the same to me, but just because an abstract concept goes over your head doesn't mean it doesn't exist. All anyone is talking about is simply the divine common denominator.

[Tsuzuki]

It doesn't matter what you call it. 

 

Don't you get it?

 

In Ex Nihilo theology, only a single substance/being existed .... God. 

 

 

Anything else that was created , whether you call it "essence" or not, ANYTHING ELSE that exists as of creation, was created from God's own mind.  Ex nihilo allows for no other alternative.

 

That is why it can be said, that with creation "out of nothing", there is no part of you that was not created by God.  God created every aspect of your being.  God created every minutia of who and what you are.  There is no avoiding it.

This depends on your definition of God. In the Kabbalah, there are the three veils of negative existence, from which everything emanated, but that doesn't mean that an old man with a beard created everything out of nothing. Old men with beards can only organize out of pre-existing matter and energy.

 

http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Veils_of_Negative_Existence

 

Mind, even the mind of God, is the property of some structure, and can only organize what's already there.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Tsuzuki

[mfbukowski]

You can't weigh or locate "purpose" either, but that's the standard LDS view of the Godhead's unity. Substance, essence, and purpose are all the same to me, but just because an abstract concept goes over your head doesn't mean it doesn't exist. All anyone is talking about is simply the divine common denominator.

BBZZZZZZZZZZ

 

No toaster for you!   But it IS good to see you!

 

I really like your reply because it totally manifests the exact problem here!

 

Your logic is part of the culture regardless of your beliefs, especially if it grows from the middle ages.  You?  Think like someone from the middle ages?  The way you think about things derives from what philosophy you read- just look at the source of your siggy- not exactly 21st century stuff you know- but I digress.

 

Like most good sectarian Christians who follow the same logic, you think that "CONCEPTS EXIST"  For you "concepts" are "real things" floating out there somewhere in some undefined Platonic realm of forms.

 

"Concepts" are nothing whatsoever.   They are thoughts in somebody's head.  They are like pictures you remember of your mother.  They are brain synapses firing and your brain connecting different parts of the picture to create it.

 

A connection goes to your verbal center and words you associate with the picture of your mother come out and you say "You look just like my mother" or whatever.

 

"Concepts" do not "exist" any more than unicorns or a purple elephant.  Because you can put words together doesn't mean there is a "thing" "out there somewhere"  which theoretically "Exists"

 

Some words can be clearly defined, others cannot.   "Elephant" can be defined by pointing, or a picture.  Very simple, very clear

 

Other words are less clear.  But the point is that "concepts" are words that are associated with brain synapses and nothing more.

 

 

You can't weigh or locate "purpose" either, but that's the standard LDS view of the Godhead's unity.

 

No, it's not.

 

It is one explanation or description - one word- we use a lot because in itself the word "purpose" has a purpose.  It describes the reason why we DO things.

 

The Godhead are "people" like us who actually DO things.  They organize "worlds".  They have children.  They raise them and teach them.  These actions have a "purpose" which unites them, like a building crew are united in purpose to build a building.

 

Can you describe a group of people who are united by "substance"?  Can you describe a group of people who are united by "essence"?  Can you describe a group of people who are united by "Being"?

 

Nope.  These words- essence, being, substance- are not used for that purpose.  They make no sense in describing people working together, or a family unified by "love" which is a VERY useful word as well.

 

This is not Platonic metaphysics, this is real people working together to get real jobs finished.  THIS is the description of the belief.  Whether or not you agree that the people involved "exist" is irrelevant.

 

The point is that the DESCRIPTION is coherent.  You can believe it describes something "real" or not.

 

Describing "concepts" as "existing" is not even coherent, much less useful in actually living one's life.

 

Thanks for your post.

[mfbukowski]

This depends on your definition of God. In the Kabbalah, there are the three veils of negative existence, from which everything emanated, but that doesn't mean that an old man with a beard created everything out of nothing. Old men with beards can only organize out of pre-existing matter and energy.

 

http://www.thelemapedia.org/index.php/Veils_of_Negative_Existence

 

Mind, even the mind of God, is the property of some structure, and can only organize what's already there.

Within your theology, of course you are right. ("mode of thought"- same as medieval thought) It is a consistent system and I don't think Stephen understands that.

That mode of thought has been replaced with something better, kind of like dinosaurs. But I suppose there is a place for people who still want to fight dinosaurs.

[Tsuzuki]

Describing "concepts" as "existing" is not even coherent, much less useful in actually living one's life.

Unless you are a scientist or mathematician. We've come a long way since Plato, but we still got here by treating at least some concepts as things.

[Tsuzuki]

Within your theology, of course you are right. ("mode of thought"- same as medieval thought) It is a consistent system and I don't think Stephen understands that.

That mode of thought has been replaced with something better, kind of like dinosaurs. But I suppose there is a place for people who still want to fight dinosaurs.

My mode of thought is consistent with the most recent scientific theories on the origin of the universe and the evolution of matter.

[mfbukowski]

Unless you are a scientist or mathematician. We've come a long way since Plato, but we still got here by treating at least some concepts as things.

No, we didn't.

I am glad the founding fathers believed in "unalienable rights" "existing" but the same concept can easily be defined simply as "We agree that it is essential for Human Rights to be considered inviolable, including the rights of...."

No weird right thingies floating out there to be embodied. All that does is confuse people into thinking the way..... many people think. That mode of thought is a burden to the Restoration and should be abandoned.

"We has humans agree we should have the following rights, as follows from our moral beliefs which are...."

That's all that's necessary.

[mfbukowski]

My mode of thought is consistent with the most recent scientific theories on the origin of the universe and the evolution of matter.

In my opinion, that is probably not correct, though we have never discussed it.

How does your theology explain the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle? That substance is a wave and a particle at the same time? What is the wavelength of an"essence"?

The point here is that every word out of every mouth is a metaphor and is not "accurate". It does not "represent" anything but a word in human communication. We can talk about elephants but not the essence of an elephant. If you want to use that phrase, it is up to you, but no one will have a clue what you are talking about.

http://ed.ted.com/lessons/what-is-the-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle-chad-orzel

I just happen to think that philosophy has actually advanced since the middle ages. I am funny that way.

[mfbukowski]

Christ can be described both as a "real person" who is visible only to those who have achieved a certain level of spiritual growth, and as the "Ideal Human" as a goal to be emulated.

There is no need for complicated theology of "substance" or "dual natures" or all that.

It is simple as can be. He is a person in a family and we can grow up to be like that family, as the embryos we are now. We are caterpillars waiting to become butterflies.

That's it.

We have faith in Him because we believe he overcame evil and we can too. We can become like him, because it is our destiny to also become gods- or "butterflies" if you prefer an analogy.

We are all in the family of man, which includes Christ as a Man and God the Father as a man. We are unified in love and purpose in raising righteous posterity.

A four-year old could understand it, and indeed they do.

No substance, essence, dual natures, floating concept thingies, just people communicating with imperfect language. That's it!

[mfbukowski]

Mind, even the mind of God, is the property of some structure, and can only organize what's already there.

Ding ding ding! Give this man the toaster after all!

God organizes by naming things. God "called" the evening and morning "the first day". He organizes words as "concepts". Before he invented a way of seeing "light" and "darkness" it didn't "exist"- it was all just physical states which are indescribable because we don't have the words to describe them.

He organized all that is through the "Word". John 1.

We do not see the strings of matter or their wavelengths. We have no name for the colors of radio waves, so they do not "exist".

We see through a glass darkly because our perceptions operate that way. Our bodies cannot do better than that. Perhaps when they don't weigh us down, things will be different.

In fact, all this is itself an analogy which only communicates and is not how "things really are". In fact this post is intentionally contradictory. I speak of seeing "waves" which is not what they are. And "strings" are not what they are. Science has invented these words and has organized their data (human perceptions, extended by machines and electronics) and organized these observations further so we can talk about them.

But even all this is just talk.

Edited July 1, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

But I must say that "mind is not a property of structure".

Our minds organize structures. If that is what you meant, ok. It's not like "mind" is out there somewhere as part of the universe, unless you mean that by extending our minds to the far reaches of the universe we organize what we see into structured "stars" and "galaxies" by naming them such.

That's the way I see it. We can tap into the way God organizes with words by emulating him and creating our own worlds without number just as He does.

[danielwoods]

Because in order to be considered "living" , you have to have a spirit AND a body .... right?

 No, because that's what the text states. 

"7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

(Gen. 2:7)

Jesus even reiterated this idea when he stated that he was from above, and we are from below.  

 

The concept that the Universe (or anyone in it) was created "out of nothing" is not a concept found in scripture.

 

 

Stephen wrote:  Can God cause an uncaused cause?   Yes or no.

 

Daniel wrote:  In answer to your question about an uncaused cause. Yes and no.

 

Nice one.  

 

You are just going to insist that God can create a free moral agent "out of nothing" ... just because , well, because God just did .... o.k.  Because you say so; forget even trying to address specifically the actual arguments that have been presented to you.

The disagreement here is one of faith. It's always been one of faith, not logic as you are trying to claim. 

 

You claim that created out of nothing is not found in scripture. Well that's true, if you have the faith that you have. I don't have that faith. So, I do see scripture teaching that God created out of nothing. 

 

Different faiths end up making different assumptions that result in the different conclusions we make. 

 

You disagree with my conclusions and mischaracterize them as something that I just "say so" and then deny that I've addressed your arguments. 

 

This discussion will continue to go nowhere if you continue saying this is only about logic or your arguments. It's about a difference in faith. 

[Tsuzuki]

We can talk about elephants but not the essence of an elephant.

https://www.broadinstitute.org/scientific-community/science/projects/mammals-models/elephant/elephant-genome-project

[mfbukowski]

https://www.broadinstitute.org/scientific-community/science/projects/mammals-models/elephant/elephant-genome-project

Why did you link to that? It doesn't even use the word "essence" anywhere, nor any of the other words causing you confusion.

That is a perfectly reasonable scientific discussion exactly because it does NOT use those terms.

[Ahab]

Why did you link to that? It doesn't even use the word "essence" anywhere, nor any of the other words causing you confusion.

That is a perfectly reasonable scientific discussion exactly because it does NOT use those terms.

You said you and he couldn't talk about the essence of an elephant and then he responded with an article that is essentially about elephants. Apparently he can talk about the essence of elephants, but you can't, so you should have just said that the first time.

[Calm]

You are equating two different things simply because they use terms that share a root word...but that doesn't mean "essence" and "essentially" are interchangeable.

 

MFB never stated you couldn't talk about elephants or have a discussion about the genetic material of elephants.  Genetic material and development and even classification is not the philosophical concept "essence".

Edited July 2, 2015 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

You are equating two different things simply because they use terms that share a root word...but that doesn't mean "essence" and "essentially" are interchangeable.

 

MFB never stated you couldn't talk about elephants or have a discussion about the genetic material of elephants.  Genetic material and development and even classification is not the philosophical concept "essence".

Thanks! No more from me. I have been over this a hundred times.

[Ahab]

Whatever the essence of an elephant is, however the word essence may be defined, apparently MFB can't discuss it. I can, and so can some other people, but apparently MFB just can't discuss it. Possibly because his idea of what the essence of an elephant is is different than some other people's idea of what the essence of an elephant is. Possibly because his idea of the word essence, generally, is different than some other people's idea of the word essence is. Who knows. Whatever the reason, MFB just can't discuss it.