Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

stephenpurdy

By stephenpurdy
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Meadowchik Grand Master

Meadowchik

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well for what my opinion is worth- nothing- you get the gold star.

When you think of all the people in the world who have been confused on this non-question and what it has resulted in, it just becomes a tragedy actually that we get so confused by words.

All these discussions and what they lead to- like Calvinism, like controversies on the Trinity- lead to schisms and hatred and worry and people actually killing each other over one's interpretation of words on a page written by men like themselves.

There is that cartoon of someone feverishly pounding the keyboard and the caption reads "No, wait Martha- I can't come to bed now- THERE'S SOMEONE WRONG ON THE INTERNET!"

The reality is that it goes back long before the internet- every theological controversy known to man has been the same. One can imagine the same cartoon, but this time with Martin Luther will a quill pen or Aristotle with.... whatever he used to write.

Religion is about creating MEANING in our lives which lead to creating our own view of God and the universe which gives our lives a direction for self improvement.

When it does not lead to self improvement, or leads one to believe that self improvement is impossible, or leads one to argue with others etc, religion becomes totally useless.

Religion does not tell us how to build houses, or boil water, or get to the moon. Its only use is to enable us to love each other and base our lives on a plan to make us happy. There is a reason we call our beliefs "The Plan of Happiness" precisely because THAT IS WHAT RELIGION IS FOR!

"Live THIS what and you will be happy"

It is not about alleged "facts" which cannot be proven or falsified, that God has condemned 99% of humanity to hell just because he felt like it.

It is not about teaching us that because we got baptized in the "right church" we have nothing to worry about and now we will become like god.

Both of those views deny religion any value whatsoever. Both end up saying "Nothing matters"

I love your phrase "conscientious, deliberate living."

As far as I am concerned, that is all that matters. The rest is confused nonsense and why I should leave this board. I really need to examine that.

I've been checking and The Plan of Happiness really is, at least for me.

Debating has long held an appeal, I've been a hammer looking for nails for a long time.

However, I've realized the hammering leaves me out of sync, although I cannot think of one more metaphor I do know I'm led to be more soft, and with that desire I still find deep discussions enriching.

Thanks for hearing me, I needed that.

I tried mashing cauliflower into the potatoes for dinner, half the crew approved :D

Edited by Meadowchik
1
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted

I've been checking and The Plan of Happiness really is, at least for me.

Debating has long held an appeal, I've been a hammer looking for nails for a long time.

However, I've realized the hammering leaves me out of sync, although I cannot think of one more metaphor I do know I'm led to be more soft, and with that desire I still find deep discussions enriching.

Thanks for hearing me, I needed that.

I tried mashing cauliflower into the potatoes for dinner, half the crew approved :D

LOL!

 

Well what I have tried to do here is to hammer- but in favor of common sense, and against confusion and silly arguments.  I firmly believe that our way of life is the absolute best for mankind, and our beliefs when fully fleshed out have no peer philosophically, spiritually, or in any other way.  All of philosophy, I think, if the history is seen as a progression from bad to better, is in our favor, especially in the last 90 or so years.   Mormons do not realize that most of the philosophy of the 20th century is "in favor" of a Mormon view.  That is a ridiculously bold statement, but even philosophies seen as "negative" when properly understood, can be seen to be in our favor.   Nietzsche's pronouncement that "god is dead" was indeed right on, when you realize that the "god" he was pronouncing "dead" was the god of the sectarians, the god without body parts or passions who exists as a vague cloud of being in three persons and one substance.  That is unintelligible, always has been and always will be, and its proponents are proud that their god cannot explain his own existence and that it is all a "mystery".

 

If a "mystery" why do we have 2000 years of debate defending what its proponents admit cannot be explained???  It's ridiculous!   If they were sitting cross legged and speaking in koans their lives would make their case for them, but they are not.   They go to science and make up silly reasons to explain why the earth is 6000 years old because they think that their theology requires it to explain the "mystery" which cannot be done without making ridiculous assertions.

 

The worst part is that we buy into the whole argument by ending up arguing that evolution is against the church, and we have GA quotes that feed the argument.  Of course not all LDS believe that, thank God but we really need to get beyond this as a church.

 

As I see it, we are usually our own worst enemies by trying to contrast our position with a co-opted "christianity" which went off track 2000 years ago and has now convinced us to argue whether or not we are "christian".   I believe we ARE the church founded by Christ, but now the word "christian" means something totally estranged from the gospel He taught, yet we try desperately to keep that label!  We need to contrast that false label others use with what the Church of Jesus Christ really is

 

Even philosophies like existentialism show us that we should "create our authentic selves" and create our own understandings and contexts for making our lives meaningful to ourselves.   What is that if not that we are "creating worlds from matter unorganized"?

 

Atheists are running around making "chruches" and seeking meaning in their lives without knowing where to find it.  http://sundayassembly.com/

 

We have those answers right here.  For us, God is a Man.  We believe that humans need to become the best humans we can become.  We have definitions for what constitutes the "best" human based on the teachings of Christ.   We are materialists, and believe that even spirit is matter.  Noted atheists have even said that they could believe in a church where God was not the Trinity or a vague being, but a "friend".   Essentially these folks worship friendship.   D&C repeatedly tells us that the savior said he wants to be our "Friend".  Our children's magazine is even named the "Friend"

 

But what are we doing?  Trying to prove Calvinists wrong using the terminology invented 2000 years ago by the Greek pagans.

 

Not the best course.  

 

So hammer away but make sure it is on the side of common sense!

Meadowchik Grand Master

Meadowchik

Posted
Posted

LOL!

Well what I have tried to do here is to hammer- but in favor of common sense, and against confusion and silly arguments. I firmly believe that our way of life is the absolute best for mankind, and our beliefs when fully fleshed out have no peer philosophically, spiritually, or in any other way. All of philosophy, I think, if the history is seen as a progression from bad to better, is in our favor, especially in the last 90 or so years. Mormons do not realize that most of the philosophy of the 20th century is "in favor" of a Mormon view. That is a ridiculously bold statement, but even philosophies seen as "negative" when properly understood, can be seen to be in our favor. Nietzsche's pronouncement that "god is dead" was indeed right on, when you realize that the "god" he was pronouncing "dead" was the god of the sectarians, the god without body parts or passions who exists as a vague cloud of being in three persons and one substance. That is unintelligible, always has been and always will be, and its proponents are proud that their god cannot explain his own existence and that it is all a "mystery".

If a "mystery" why do we have 2000 years of debate defending what its proponents admit cannot be explained??? It's ridiculous! If they were sitting cross legged and speaking in koans their lives would make their case for them, but they are not. They go to science and make up silly reasons to explain why the earth is 6000 years old because they think that their theology requires it to explain the "mystery" which cannot be done without making ridiculous assertions.

The worst part is that we buy into the whole argument by ending up arguing that evolution is against the church, and we have GA quotes that feed the argument. Of course not all LDS believe that, thank God but we really need to get beyond this as a church.

As I see it, we are usually our own worst enemies by trying to contrast our position with a co-opted "christianity" which went off track 2000 years ago and has now convinced us to argue whether or not we are "christian". I believe we ARE the church founded by Christ, but now the word "christian" means something totally estranged from the gospel He taught, yet we try desperately to keep that label! We need to contrast that false label others use with what the Church of Jesus Christ really is

Even philosophies like existentialism show us that we should "create our authentic selves" and create our own understandings and contexts for making our lives meaningful to ourselves. What is that if not that we are "creating worlds from matter unorganized"?

Atheists are running around making "chruches" and seeking meaning in their lives without knowing where to find it. http://sundayassembly.com/

We have those answers right here. For us, God is a Man. We believe that humans need to become the best humans we can become. We have definitions for what constitutes the "best" human based on the teachings of Christ. We are materialists, and believe that even spirit is matter. Noted atheists have even said that they could believe in a church where God was not the Trinity or a vague being, but a "friend". Essentially these folks worship friendship. D&C repeatedly tells us that the savior said he wants to be our "Friend". Our children's magazine is even named the "Friend"

But what are we doing? Trying to prove Calvinists wrong using the terminology invented 2000 years ago by the Greek pagans.

Not the best course.

So hammer away but make sure it is on the side of common sense!

One recent thought I've had is how the world is only really getting the chance at Christianity now, as religious freedom becomes more common and Christian countries are cutting the state away from religion.

This is good. Christ never advocated a theocracy, it's such a glaring contradiction to his description of the Kingdom of God.

We should expect to see a general decline in religiosity, but on the bright side, perhaps people are happy enough that true religion requires true faith and not just fear of punishment where they're seeking the release from punishment. And religion is becoming less attached to civil and political favors, so with both considerations, individuals have a greater chance to believe authentically.

I'm optimistic.

The next step: the attachment of religion and politics was no coincidence. The clannishness of religion creates a very efficient feedback loop, pro-government, when religion and politics mix.

Christ, along with preaching something beyond theocracy, also taught against this clannishness. So imo the next step away from old Christian-culture mores is to not make baptism a requirement for "the church family." We are to love everyone, include as many as we can and who will into our circle. Of course, covenant still bonds. However, we've been taught to love our neighbor, to love as Christ loves, for 2000 years. It's about time.

I'm beyond encouraged that the Church seems to be preaching this...we're the ones who've got a whole bunch of cultural partisan baggage to discard, to be able to move the bus.

mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted

Christ, along with preaching something beyond theocracy, also taught against this clannishness. So imo the next step away from old Christian-culture mores is to not make baptism a requirement for "the church family." We are to love everyone, include as many as we can and who will into our circle. Of course, covenant still bonds. However, we've been taught to love our neighbor, to love as Christ loves, for 2000 years. It's about time.

I'm beyond encouraged that the Church seems to be preaching this...we're the ones who've got a whole bunch of cultural partisan baggage to discard, to be able to move the bus.

I am not at all sure that the church is preaching that baptism is not necessary or that we should forget about covenants?

 

Not sure what you mean here

Meadowchik Grand Master

Meadowchik

Posted
Posted (edited)

I am not at all sure that the church is preaching that baptism is not necessary or that we should forget about covenants?

Not sure what you mean here

No, no, no, baptism and covenants are as necessary as ever. It's our culture that can be clannish, making loving social circles, intentionally or not, almost exclusive to the covenant-makers.

The Church has been teaching us to reach out beyond, beyond those who fit the expected church norm, beyond those in good standing, beyond membership. It's more than just seeking converts, but seeking loving relationships as often and far reaching as we can.

This would mean that no person who doesn't fit expectations will be shunned. I personally know that many are already good at making these spaces, but more can be done.

Sorry for the tangent, I'm just excited to talk about the difference between 2000 yr old politicized Christianity, and what we have a chance for now.

This does tie into free will, however. One could say it is at least as important to allow it for each other, independent of our love for them, as it is to be able to absolutely understand its cosmology...(the former does inform the latter.)

Edited by Meadowchik
3
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted (edited)

No, no, no, baptism and covenants are as necessary as ever. It's our culture that can be clannish, making loving social circles, intentionally or not, almost exclusive to the covenant-makers.

The Church has been teaching us to reach out beyond, beyond those who fit the expected church norm, beyond those in good standing, beyond membership. It's more than just seeking converts, but seeking loving relationships as often and far reaching as we can.

This would mean that no person who doesn't fit expectations will be shunned. I personally know that many are already good at making these spaces, but more can be done.

Sorry for the tangent, I'm just excited to talk about the difference between 2000 yr old politicized Christianity, and what we have a chance for now.

This does tie into free will, however. One could say it is at least as important to allow it for each other, independent of our love for them, as it is to be able to absolutely understand its cosmology...(the former does inform the latter.)

Well quite honestly I think the shunning part is is far more common in the Mormon Corridor where you can just walk down the street and tell the Mormons from the non-Mormons by their dress, not always of course, but often.  Even guys and women in their grubbies up there will look like missionaries on p-day.

 

Where I live, in LA, virtually no women in summertime for example, wear clothes that cover their shoulders and those who do stand out.  Virtually no girls wear what we would call "modest" shorts, guys wear "Wife-beaters" (underwear shirts without sleeves) or just take off their shirts.

 

I went to a baptism last week and most of the non-member guest investigators who were friends of the person being baptized were wearing jeans and t-shirts, none of the women were in dresses, and the woman being baptized herself wore a sleeve less dress with "spaghetti straps" after the baptism.  No one told her otherwise or mentioned "clothing standards".   We were all there in coats and ties and dresses and the guys were whipping off their jackets like crazy just to kind of make the others feel comfortable.

 

We have no one who brags about being a "fifth generation Mormon" and probably 60 percent of our ward are converts.  It is seen to be in bad taste to brag about your Mormon ancestors, and pioneer day celebrations usually feature tacos, rice and beans.

 

There was a GA recently who gave a talk (forgot who) who said that the odor of tobacco smoke on someone's clothes in sacrament meeting is the "best smell" because it lets him know that people are working on repenting!  They still have a problem but show up in sacrament meeting anyway!

 

If we were clannish, we would not have a ward because there are not enough "Utah Mormons" to BE clannish!!   It is not unusual at all to see at least one woman in slacks at sacrament meeting and probably 10-15 % of men virtually never wear ties, and facial hair is totally accepted on the stake level and ward as well.  Beards, goatees and mustaches and shaved heads are not even noticed and certainly not mentioned, especially among the sisters.  ;)  (j/k)

 

So yes, we are getting "there" but still have a long way to go.

 

But thanks for the clarification- I get it now and we agree.

Edited by mfbukowski
1
stephenpurdy Rising Star

stephenpurdy

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Round and round we go.

I already made it clear, that I'm a Catholic, and so I think it is obvious MY theology, is aligned to Catholic teaching.

MY theology does not leave out free will from ex nihilo.

.....

 

I haven't seen a logical representation,

 

 

Because your theology has ignored the logical conclusions that result from your theology's chief assumptions.

 

 

 

......

 

 

You haven't seen it, because you didn't bother to analyse the arguments provided by the introduction video and the supplement video posted on this thread.

 

 

 

 

-Stephen

Edited by stephenpurdy
stephenpurdy Rising Star

stephenpurdy

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Surely a few random people on the internet can have it figured out in a handful of posts even though philosophers haven't been able to after a few thousand years (unexaggerated number).

 

 

Interestingly enough, a young farm boy named Joseph Smith somehow provided a solution.

 

Did he come up with it on his own?

 

-stephen

stephenpurdy Rising Star

stephenpurdy

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

From post 22 and 43, where you claim "this has been answered." 

 

Simply claiming that God can't create a free will out of nothing is not called answering or explaining why, rather it's called an assertion. You have asserted that it can't happen, you haven't explained why. 

 

Sure I did.  I explained it in the introduction and supplement video way, way , way back near the beginning of the thread

 

You didn't even bother to specifically respond the the Hausam quotes provided.

 

I explained EXACTLY why a being of free will cannot be created out of nothing.

 

Daniel:  If you don't think that God created our free will, you believe we don't have it, or God didn't actually give it to us?

 

I wanted to address this point.

 

In a certain sense, God did give us 'free will' , but in the sense that God gave us "the power to act rather than being acted upon".  In other words, God gave us the place and opportunity to use our will to act.

 

-stephen

Edited by stephenpurdy
stephenpurdy Rising Star

stephenpurdy

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Stephen wrote:  Why are you trying to dodge the question?  There is a spirit that dwells within the body of a human being.  Where does the spirit come from?  

Saemo:  I already answered. God will create the soul and the nature of the soul is spirit.

 

 

So, with Ex Nihilo theology God creates the nature of that being, (Indeed, God creates every single aspect of that being, every single characteristic, etc) out of God's own mind.  If God would have created different characteristics or a different nature within that being, then that being would respond different situations.

 

Saem: I've read the whole thread, and haven't responded because Daniel has your points covered. I don't see the point in rewriting what has already been presented by someone else, unless you're looking for me to write, "what he said".

 

Daniel probably didn't watch the videos: he did not respond to the arguments made, he did not express that he even understood the arguments in any meaningful way.

 

Neither of you even bothered to respond specifically to the quotes / arguments provided by Hausam. 

 

Not even a simple yes or no:  Can God create an uncaused cause?

 

Saemo:  So yes, I agree, God created us, even personality as that is part of who we are, but personality is not set at birth. It is shaped by experience, our culture, family, etc.

 
 

 

Stephen wrote: Correct.  So, in creation Ex Nihilo theology,  God created every aspect of our being, out of nothing, AND God created our environment, out of nothing.   All of this was discussed in the videos that you refuse to watch and/or refuse to try and understand.  Try doing that first, before you attempt to address the topic we are discussing here.

Saemo:  Probably not going to happen, so I'll leave your discussion.

 

Finally an honest response.  As you can see, I was willing to sit through the link that you provided: analyse it and understand it, and then discuss it.  If you are not willing to do the same, then you are not seeking truth or understanding.

 

-stephen

Edited by stephenpurdy
saemo Mentor

saemo

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm sorry to break it to you, but I believe Truth is found in a Person, Jesus Christ, and not in a random video posted on the internet by a random stranger.

 

 

 

 

Misrepresentations of what I believe are not truths.

Edited by saemo
danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted

Because your theology has ignored the logical conclusions that result from your theology's chief assumptions.

 

I'm almost certain nothing else needs to be said. Your statement here demonstrates your position. You posit that logic determines your premise. This is a profound error. Because logic alone can't dictate either side. 

 

Both sides make theological conclusions based on the evidence we have. Your statement above is incorrect. We don't ignore the logical conclusions, rather we believe what God has instructed us via his word. IF God says that he has given us a free moral will, a choice. Then it is our faith that believes him. 

 

It isn't a disagreement over logic, but faith. 

Nofear Grand Master

Nofear

Posted
Posted

Interestingly enough, a young farm boy named Joseph Smith somehow provided a solution.

 

Did he come up with it on his own?

 

-stephen

 

He did indeed. It's a remarkable solution. Indeed, we could well ask our ex nihilo friends (Catholic or Protestant) that 1) if one grants that there is a component of human identity which is not created by God then 2) does that provide a potential avenue for a solution to the problem of evil? Granted, they don't accept premise 1), but if they did, do they accept it as a potential solution?

stephenpurdy Rising Star

stephenpurdy

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm almost certain nothing else needs to be said. Your statement here demonstrates your position. You posit that logic determines your premise. This is a profound error. Because logic alone can't dictate either side. 

....

 

How would you know if logic cannot dictate either side, if you haven't bothered to analize the arguments that have been presented to you?

 

-Stephen

stephenpurdy Rising Star

stephenpurdy

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 We don't ignore the logical conclusions, rather we believe what God has instructed us via his word. IF God says that he has given us a free moral will, a choice. Then it is our faith that believes him. 

 

It isn't a disagreement over logic, but faith. 

 

 

LDS also believe that we are given a choice. 

 

Perhaps another question is .... Why do you believe in Ex Nihilo creation?

 

-Stephen

danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted

How would you know if logic cannot dictate either side, if you haven't bothered to analize the arguments that have been presented to you?

 

-Stephen

 

You know what I've analyzed? 

danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted (edited)

LDS also believe that we are given a choice. 

 

Perhaps another question is .... Why do you believe in Ex Nihilo creation?

 

-Stephen

 

Because it's taught in the Bible. 

 

http://www.reasons.org/articles/creation-ex-nihilo

 

Well not explicitly at least according to Roger:

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/01/why-i-believe-in-creatio-ex-nihilo-creation-out-of-nothing-even-though-the-bible-doesnt-directly-teach-it/

 

For William Lane Craig's view compared with that of the LDS:

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creatio-ex-nihilo-a-critique-of-the-mormon-doctrine-of-creation

Edited by danielwoods
saemo Mentor

saemo

Posted
Posted (edited)
:) It is taught explicitly in 2 Maccabees:

7:28

I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things. In the same way humankind came into existence.

Edited by saemo
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted

Of course no one ever answers my question of why one should believe in the bible in the first place, but we have been down that road a hundred times without an answer so I won't expect it now.

 

No one can seem to answer that one except the LDS.  No one even tries to answer it except us.   Let me give you a clue: it's because you have a testimony. just as we do.

Anakin7 Veteran

Anakin7

Posted
Posted (edited)

       I believe LDS Blake Ostler has responded to this creation ex nihilo concept perhaps one can link to his awesome works on this.

 

       In His Eternal Debt/Grace

                     Anakin7

Edited by Anakin7
tagriffy Experienced

tagriffy

Posted
Posted

:) It is taught explicitly in 2 Maccabees:

7:28

I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things. In the same way humankind came into existence.

 

No, this verse does not teach creatio ex nihilo explicitly. First, there is a textual/translation issue here. The text could could just as easily read "God made them from things which are not" (note e to the verse in the New Jerusalem Bible, cf. Wisdom 11:17 and Hebrews 11:2). You quote the second half of the verse, but you don't consider the implication. "In the same way humankind came into existence." Now back up to Genesis 2:7, "Yahweh God shaped man from the ground." If Jason (or his abridger) intended say the world was created out of nothing (And why not just say so? It's not like there wasn't perfectly serviceable Greek words meaning "nothing."), he sure picked a strange way of doing it.

1
saemo Mentor

saemo

Posted
Posted (edited)

The verse is understood as teaching creation from nothing, by the Eastern Orthodox, whose language is Greek.

From things that are not, or from nothing, what difference do you see in the two phrasings? Is there *something* in what is not?

God created the soul of Adam from nothing.

God created the earth, and making Adam from something which God created does not make Adam created from the type of existing material of which Mormons believe. But of material that God made. Ultimately making him created from nothing.

At any rate, LDS follow the Reformers, who removed Maccabees from the Biblical canon and reject the authority of the Church to interpret scripture. Instead, going with a shortened canon and self interpretations, as you are. So it comes down to where the authority to interpret scripture resides. My belief is, it is in the Church that Christ established during His ministry.

Edited by saemo
danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted

The verse is understood as teaching creation from nothing, by the Eastern Orthodox, whose language is Greek.

From things that are not, or from nothing, what difference do you see in the two phrasings? Is there *something* in what is not?

God created the soul of Adam from nothing.

God created the earth, and making Adam from something which God created does not make Adam created from the type of existing material of which Mormons believe. But of material that God made. Ultimately making him created from nothing.

At any rate, LDS follow the Reformers, who removed Maccabees from the Biblical canon and reject the authority of the Church to interpret scripture. Instead, going with a shortened canon and self interpretations, as you are. So it comes down to where the authority to interpret scripture resides. My belief is, it is in the Church that Christ established during His ministry.

 

Which also agrees with the statement of Jesus where he said, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8:23)

TheSkepticChristian Veteran

TheSkepticChristian

Posted
Posted

 

:) It is taught explicitly in 2 Maccabees

 

 

There are big problems for creation ex nihilo. 

 

1. Problem of Evil 

2. The Bible does not say that "space and time" were created 

3. and a Trinity God that exist outside time cannot think because time is required to think. 

4. How did God create time? Doesn't that take time?

5. How is existing outside time possible? Do you have any evidence? 

 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...