The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[Tsuzuki]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-2013-from-blue-trunks-to-shell-suits-8882127.html?action=gallery

 

 

"'Essence of elephants' by Greg du Toit: Overall winner in the adult category for NHM Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2013"

[Tsuzuki]

Of course, Greg du Toit has obviously not been informed by the Restoration, otherwise he would have given his photo a different title, most likely something descriptive of what the elephants are actually doing.

[Calm]

Or he is using a metaphor to convey something that can not be conveyed.

 

Please point to where in the picture it depicts the below in regards to elephants...

 

Philosophy. the inward nature, true substance, orconstitution of anything, as opposed to what isaccidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/essence?s=t

[Ahab]

According to that definition, the philosophical definition of essence in regards to elephants is essentially what all elephants are, speaking in terms of their inward nature, or the true substance of what they are, or their constitution.

And yet for some reason MFB still can't discuss the essence of elephants.

Go figure.

[TheSkepticChristian]

You posted that video as if I didn't already explain it. 

 

Or ... you probably just didn't watch my video, which SPECIFICALLY addresses exactly what Katu was referring to.

 

I didn't watch the video, but I will. 

 

Another problem for ex-nihilo is sin and the law. Honestly, why would a ex-nihilo god create laws? 

 

Edited July 2, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[stephenpurdy]

mfbukowski, on 30 Jun 2015 - 11:37 PM, said: 

 

There is no such thing as "essence"

 

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

 

 

Stephen wrote:  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.

 

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.

 

 

I just don't have to get into it in order to to get my point across. 

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

 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)

 

  …25"Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26"For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;

 

 

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

 

Indeed, the "pre-eminent" Son is above all else and above all others, but that is not what these verses are about.

 

The argument of verse 24 explains the description of verse 23.  This is not talking about where they literally come from.  Jesus was conceived in the Virgin's womb; otherwise he would not have been the seed of the woman, the son of Abraham, David, and Mary.  Indeed, Adam and Eve (who represent man) were in the presence of God before the Fall.  That isn't what this passage is about.

 

These Jews were separated from God because of their unbelief which will leave them in their sins. He said to them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above. Your thoughts and actions spring from the fallen nature (fallen man) rather than from the divine nature (like Jesus).  They are influenced by considerations drawn from demonic forces below, sensual, superficial, and transitory.  On the other hand, Christ was influenced by the Heavenly and eternal. The mission of these "anti-Christs" who were opposing Jesus was spawned by hell.  The mission of Jesus Christ proceeded from Heaven. 

 

 

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

 

By now, I am quite aware that you would rather just say , "I believe that God created out of nothing", without looking at the logical ramifications of such a dogma.

 

 

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. 

 

Certainly, if you assume that the word "create" implies creation out of nothing, then you will interpret those verses to mean "ex nihilo".

 

However, it is clear from other verses in the text, that it should NOT be assumed that "create" implies "out of nothing".  So, why be so insistent on ex nihilo creation?

 

 

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

 

 

Please point to the post (or posts) where you have addressed my arguments.

 

-Stephen

[danielwoods]

…25"Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26"For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;

Not sure what this has to do with Adam becoming a living being?

 

Indeed, the "pre-eminent" Son is above all else and above all others, but that is not what these verses are about.

 

The argument of verse 24 explains the description of verse 23.  This is not talking about where they literally come from.  Jesus was conceived in the Virgin's womb; otherwise he would not have been the seed of the woman, the son of Abraham, David, and Mary.  Indeed, Adam and Eve (who represent man) were in the presence of God before the Fall.  That isn't what this passage is about.

 

These Jews were separated from God because of their unbelief which will leave them in their sins. He said to them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above. Your thoughts and actions spring from the fallen nature (fallen man) rather than from the divine nature (like Jesus).  They are influenced by considerations drawn from demonic forces below, sensual, superficial, and transitory.  On the other hand, Christ was influenced by the Heavenly and eternal. The mission of these "anti-Christs" who were opposing Jesus was spawned by hell.  The mission of Jesus Christ proceeded from Heaven.

 

Your description is partly accurate. It is true that Jesus' thoughts and actions were from a heavenly and eternal source. However, the statement of John 8:23 is plainly about where he was from. As it states: John 8:23  “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world."

 

Your explanation isn't found in the passage. He doesn't state, "Oh what I mean is, you are influenced by demonic forces and I'm influenced by heavenly ones. Nope. Jesus is plainly stating a fact of his origin. Which fits perfectly with what Jesus stated at other times. 

 

 

John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

John 3:31 The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

John 6:46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

 

 

By now, I am quite aware that you would rather just say , "I believe that God created out of nothing", without looking at the logical ramifications of such a dogma.

 

 

Certainly, if you assume that the word "create" implies creation out of nothing, then you will interpret those verses to mean "ex nihilo".

 

However, it is clear from other verses in the text, that it should NOT be assumed that "create" implies "out of nothing".  So, why be so insistent on ex nihilo creation?

 

 

Please point to the post (or posts) where you have addressed my arguments.

 

-Stephen

If you assume that the context of creation in Genesis isn't out of nothing, then of course you will interpret those verses that way, and say that anything else is illogical. 

 

Like I said, if you don't acknowledge that this isn't a debate of logic and logical ramifications, but of faith and assumptions that are based on ones faith, then it goes no where. 

 

I have watched your videos, and made arguments to rebut what you have stated. But, your continued characterization of my position as "illogical" or "just inconsistent" leaves me with no motivation to go back and find them again, because I don't see your argument changing. You think you have a strong and persuasive argument, so why would you abandon it and actually engage with what I have stated? 

[mfbukowski]

It is really absurd to see LDS people supporting substance theology and the trinity.

Absurd. For they know not what they do.

THIS is a serious problem

I never thought I would see this, but here it is. LDS trinitarians protesting the trinity, united with luciferians.

Duchamp would love it.

Edited July 3, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Or he is using a metaphor to convey something that can not be conveyed.

 

Please point to where in the picture it depicts the below in regards to elephants...

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/essence?s=t

The problem is that definition shows that the term is vacuous. It has no meaning.

What is the essence of being an elephant? Being an elephant. What does that illuminate? Nothing.

What is the essence of being a dog? Being a dog.

 

Philosophy. the inward nature, true substance, orconstitution of anything, as opposed to what isaccidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.

 

What is the inward nature of anything?  To be what it is.  AHA!  Profound circular nothingness,

 

What is the constitution of anything?  To be what it is.  Vacuous.

 

And look at what it is opposed to.  Phenomenal- what we actually see is equated with being "illusory". 

 

So what is real is vacuous and what we see and feel since it is phenomenal, is illusory.

 

It is totally ridiculous to see LDS supporting substance theology.  Soon we will have transubstantiation in sacrament meeting, justified by the sacrament being the essence and substance of Christ. 

 

All those accidents - those appearances of bread and water are illusory, what is real is the essence and substance.

 

Aquinas would love it!

 

Cool.  Then we will be catholic again and the apostasy will be back in full sway.  Spiffy.   LDS arguing this?  Unbelievable.

[mfbukowski]

According to that definition, the philosophical definition of essence in regards to elephants is essentially what all elephants are, speaking in terms of their inward nature, or the true substance of what they are, or their constitution.

And yet for some reason MFB still can't discuss the essence of elephants.

Go figure.

I didn't know you were Catholic.

[mfbukowski]

God three persons unified by being and substance.  Perfect Nicene Creed.

They have won through our own ignorance.

[mfbukowski]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/wildlife-photographer-of-the-year-2013-from-blue-trunks-to-shell-suits-8882127.html?action=gallery

 

 

"'Essence of elephants' by Greg du Toit: Overall winner in the adult category for NHM Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2013"

Are you serious?  The title of a photograph is supposed to justify your argument?

[Stargazer]

Surely He had some need to create in the first place

 

Oh, sure, He got bored one lazy afternoon, and so...  BANG!

 

Not.

[Calm]

The problem is that definition shows that the term is vacuous. It has no meaning.

Yep.  One of the reasons it is impossible to point to it.  

[mfbukowski]

Oh, sure, He got bored one lazy afternoon, and so...  BANG!

 

Not.

OK Mr smarty pants, why DID God create the world then

 

"Yonder is a bunch of dust.  Let's go make a world like the others"

 

What's the motivation?  Nothing?  My point was that there WAS motivation there.

[Tsuzuki]

Stephen wrote:  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.

And thus we are God, as is the devil, just having come through a certain number of evolutionary iterations. There is no part of me that is not God.

[Stargazer]

OK Mr smarty pants, why DID God create the world then

 

"Yonder is a bunch of dust.  Let's go make a world like the others"

 

What's the motivation?  Nothing?  My point was that there WAS motivation there.

 

Oh stop it.  I was being sarcastic.  I don't think God is even capable of experiencing boredom.

 

God created the Universe because He wanted and needed to create more beings like Himself, and then raise as many of them as possible to His level.  Otherwise there is no freaking point to the exercise. 

[Bobbieaware]

It is really absurd to see LDS people supporting substance theology and the trinity.Absurd. For they know not what they do.THIS is a serious problemI never thought I would see this, but here it is. LDS trinitarians protesting the trinity, united with luciferians.Duchamp would love it.

I've said it before and now I'm going to have to say it again: In LDS theology there is an actual empowering and life-giving material substance called "the Spirit" that, as Paul said, enables the individual members of the church to be fully united into one body known as the "body of Christ" (the church). This principle of divine unity that exists within the church can rightly be referred to as "the unity of the Spirit." And since in Mormonism the Spirit has actual substance, the unity of the Spirit could also be rightly be said to be "the unity of the saints by the means of a shared spiritual substance."

The scriptures go on to say Christ himself enjoys the eternal fullness of the presence of the same Spirit within his own being, and it is the same Spirit that enables the saints to be "one body" although each member is an individual personage and intelligent free agent. Paul tells us that because Christ has the fullness of the Spirit within his own being (do you remember when the fullness of the Spirit descended on him at his baptism?), and because we have access to that same indwelling substance of Spirit, the saints can be one with Christ in the same way they are unified with each other in one body.

The Lectures on Faith go on to tell us that the perfect unity that exists between the Father and the Son is made possible by the fact that that both are filled to eternal fullness with the Holy Spirit. This Holy Spirit is an actual substance, and it is by this shared divine substance that one fine day the Fathet, the Son and the worthy saints will all be one and "dwell" in each other.

In Mormonism there is an actual divine substance (not an oxymoronic "immaterial substance) that enables the members of the church to be one, the Godhead to be one, and the Godhead and the saints to be one. Again, there is an actual material substance that brings spirituall unity to the Godhead and the Saints, and this fact is undeniable -- so why fight it? Given how the indwelling of the Spirit is an all-important principle in LDS theology, the importance of spiritual unity by means of the Spirit cannot be minimized as an insignificant principle. Indeed, the need for the indwelling of the Spirit is among THE most important of principles of the LDS faith.

Instead of looking for ways to remain forever at odds with the Trinitarians, why not be peacemakers and let them know the Mormons have solved their incomprehensible Trinitarians mystery? Why not inform them that their mysterious unifying substance is nothing less than an actual tangible substance known as the eternal Spirit of divine intelligence or, as the Lectures on Faith call it, Mind?

Edited July 3, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

I've said it before and now I'm going to have to say it again: In LDS theology there is an actual empowering and life-giving material substance called "the Spirit" that, as Paul said, enables the individual members of the church to be fully united into one body known as the "body of Christ" (the church). This principle of divine unity that exists within the church can rightly be referred to as "the unity of the Spirit." And since in Mormonism the Spirit has actual substance, the unity of the Spirit could also be rightly be said to be "the unity of the saints by the means of a shared spiritual substance."

The scriptures go on to say Christ himself enjoys the eternal fullness of the presence of the same Spirit within his own being, and it is the same Spirit that enables the saints to be "one body" although each member is an individual personage and intelligent free agent. Paul tells us that because Christ has the fullness of the Spirit within his own being (do you remember when the fullness of the Spirit descended on him at his baptism?), and because we have access to that same indwelling substance of Spirit, the saints can be one with Christ in the same way they are unified with each other in one body.

The Lectures on Faith go on to tell us that the perfect unity that exists between the Father and the Son is made possible by the fact that that both are filled to eternal fullness with the Holy Spirit. This Holy Spirit is an actual substance, and it is by this shared divine substance that one fine day the Fathet, the Son and the worthy saints will all be one and "dwell" in each other.

In Mormonism there is an actual divine substance (not an oxymoronic "immaterial substance) that enables the members of the church to be one, the Godhead to be one, and the Godhead and the saints to be one. Again, there is an actual material substance that brings spirituall unity to the Godhead and the Saints, and this fact is undeniable -- so why fight it? Given how the indwelling of the Spirit is an all-important principle in LDS theology, the importance of spiritual unity by means of the Spirit cannot be minimized as an insignificant principle. Indeed, the need for the indwelling of the Spirit is among THE most important of principles of the LDS faith.

Instead of looking for ways to remain forever at odds with the Trinitarians, why not be peacemakers and let them know the Mormons have solved their incomprehensible Trinitarians mystery? Why not inform them that their mysterious unifying substance is nothing less than an actual tangible substance known as the eternal Spirit of divine intelligence or, as the Lectures on Faith call it, Mind?

Wonderful post, thanks. If we are talking spirit matter as a physical theoretically measurable " substance" that is another kettle of substantial fish. But it must be clear in every definition that we are talking theoretical physics poetry here.

That is not what was being said though. But thanks, that's an important distinction.

We are materialists and that must be clear.

[Ahab]

I didn't know you were Catholic.

Watch out! You might start talking about what essence is if you keep talking to me, and that would be something you said you can't do! Whether it's the essence of an elephant, or the essence of something else. The essence of anything is just the way that it is!

[stephenpurdy]

Wonderful post, thanks. If we are talking spirit matter as a physical theoretically measurable " substance" that is another kettle of substantial fish. But it must be clear in every definition that we are talking theoretical physics poetry here.

That is not what was being said though. But thanks, that's an important distinction.

We are materialists and that must be clear.

 

The "light of Christ" and the Holy Spirit are not the same thing though, so, I wish that his post would have clarified that a little more.  The light of Christ IS literally omnipresent.

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

 

If you assume that the context of creation in Genesis isn't out of nothing, then of course you will interpret those verses that way, and say that anything else is illogical. 

 

In Genesis, when God said, "let there be light" , the formless Earth was already there!

 

 

"Create" elsewhere in the text describes creation from something.

 

 

The LDS interpretation has backing from elsewhere in the Biblical text, while ex nihilo interpretation does not.

 

I have watched your videos, and made arguments to rebut what you have stated. But, your continued characterization of my position as "illogical" or "just inconsistent" leaves me with no motivation to go back and find them again,

 

I don't think anyone will find your "rebut" by looking back through this thread.  I already looked.  I would ask something like, "can God cause an uncaused cause"...

 

your answer was "Yes and no".  

 

Um.  ... O.K.

 

-Stephen

Edited July 3, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

 
John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.

John 3:31 The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

John 6:46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 

You will not find disagreement from Mormons that Jesus came from Heaven.  LDS view Christ as Deity at the right hand of the Father prior to his mortality.

 

The question is where does the spirit of man come from?   Answer: from God (but not ex nihilo)

 

-Stephen

[mfbukowski]

Oh stop it.  I was being sarcastic.  I don't think God is even capable of experiencing boredom.

 

God created the Universe because He wanted and needed to create more beings like Himself, and then raise as many of them as possible to His level.  Otherwise there is no freaking point to the exercise. 

Ok.    Sorry boss.