Lds View Of Godhead / Trinity

[Spammer]

Sure. With some considerable "mental gymnastics" and ignoring the context of certain passages, I am sure you could try to twist things a certain way ... but it will definitely be a mess.

-Stephen

Sure, if we're operating from within your paradigm. But I don't grant your unprovable assumptions and that conditions the kinds of scholarly and other evidences that I accept as evidence. And vice versa.  I believe differently from you.  I believe that belief that God is wholly other and also became one of us is 'the very core of Christianity'.  We have different interpretations of the same scriptural and scholarly evidence and we differ because we operate within different paradigms.  Mine is grounded on the unprovable assumptions that there was no Great Apostasy and that the ancient church that compiled the Bible and the church established by Christ are one and the same.  Yours is grounded on opposite assumptions that are equally unprovable.  It all comes down to what makes sense to us individually based on our experiences and subjective interpretations of the same scriptural, scholarly, and historical evidences.  Your debates with Daniel are a case in point.  Scriptures and scholars are being flung in every direction without effect.  Vary the assumptions and you vary the interpretation of the exact same evidence.  There are only interpretations. The only people who will be convinced are the choir or those who are dissatisfied and seeking for a new paradigm to make sense of their lives.

 

[Edit to add:]  To illustrate, I believe in ex nihilo creation.  Nothing you can throw at me will convince me to believe otherwise because I accept four unprovable assumptions: 1) Jesus rose from the dead; 2) He created a church; 3) there was no Great Apostasy; and 4) that church is the same church that compiled the Bible.  I look to the Tradition of the church and the teachings of the Holy Fathers for correct scriptural interpretation, not to any university scholar. 1) is an article of faith.  2) through 4) are the product of my own personal reading, evaluation, and interpretation of the New Testament and the ancient patristic writings from the 1st-4th centuries.  I evaluated the weight of the evidence and made a decision that sits right with me and seems eminently reasonable. See what I mean?  None of the evidence you've compiled about ex nihilo will have any affect on someone like me, since the only evidence I accept about which Christian church is the one established by Christ is the available historical evidence from the first few centuries.  t's my paradigm.  You have a different paradigm.  Neither can be proven true or false. So, I take issue with your conclusion that 'to assert that God is "wholly other" undermines the very core of Christianity.' To the contrary, I believe that knowing that God is "wholly other" but also became one of us just is the very core of Christianity.  Like I said, it's all just interpretation, anyway.  None of this can be proved, neither my position nor yours.    

Edited July 15, 2015 by Spammer

[stephenpurdy]

 ....Your debates with Daniel are a case in point.  Scriptures and scholars are being flung in every direction without effect.  Vary the assumptions and you vary the interpretation of the exact same evidence.  There are only interpretations. ....

 

I prefer not to "fling" scriptures and scholars in every direction.

 

I like to look of the text itself, within the context, (historical and textual), and analyze it for myself.  I like to look at the arguments that scholars have presented, and then weigh the merits of those arguments.  I look at the strengths and weaknesses of those arguments, and then establish my opinions/beliefs based on what I have learned.

 

-Stephen

Edited July 15, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[Spammer]

I prefer not to "fling" scriptures and scholars in every direction.

I like to look of the text itself, within the context, (historical and textual), and analyze it for myself. I like to look at the arguments that scholars have presented, and then weigh the merits of those arguments. I look at the strengths and weaknesses of those arguments, and then establish my opinions/beliefs based on what I have learned.

-Stephen

Precisely. We first carefully measure, calibrate and balance our ammo; then we start shooting. We engage others in debate who are just as careful and studied but of a different belief. Proof texts are cited, scholars name dropped, and no one gets anywhere. We operate with a different set of assumptions, which colors our interpretation of every data point we refer to. We speak different languages. The only people who actually listen are those looking for a different language, a different lens through which to interpret the evidence. Edited July 15, 2015 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

I prefer not to "fling" scriptures and scholars in every direction.

 

I like to look of the text itself, within the context, (historical and textual), and analyze it for myself.  I like to look at the arguments that scholars have presented, and then weigh the merits of those arguments.  I look at the strengths and weaknesses of those arguments, and then establish my opinions/beliefs based on what I have learned.

 

-Stephen

There are only interpretations.  Scholars can help with translations and context, but imo that ultimately doesn't much to what God wants us to get out the scriptures.

 

That's inside us or its nowhere.  All the arguments in the world won't convert anyone.  In my opinion, it's a waste of time to argue scriptural interpretation to get it "right".

 

I mean how do we know that it WAS "right" in the first place anyway?  Even if we can get the exact "meaning" of the original writer- (which we cannot) it is irrelevant anyway if he was wrong.

[mfbukowski]

Sure it's nice to know history and context.  But at some point the question arises- shall I actually believe this stuff or not?

[mfbukowski]

Sure.  With some considerable "mental gymnastics" and ignoring the context of certain passages, I am sure you could try to twist things a certain way ... but it will definitely be a mess.

 

-Stephen

One man's gymnastics are another man's yoga

[Tsuzuki]

One man's gymnastics are another man's yoga

That's what I keep trying to say.

[stephenpurdy]

 

There are only interpretations.  Scholars can help with translations and context, but imo that ultimately doesn't much to what God wants us to get out the scriptures.

 

That's inside us or its nowhere.  All the arguments in the world won't convert anyone.  In my opinion, it's a waste of time to argue scriptural interpretation to get it "right".

 

I mean how do we know that it WAS "right" in the first place anyway?  Even if we can get the exact "meaning" of the original writer- (which we cannot) it is irrelevant anyway if he was wrong.

 

 I think that if there is someone who is humble and open minded, it may not even be a person who is actively participating in the debate, but instead someone in the audience, then an argument may lead that person to believe that their previous set of assumptions or beliefs may need some revision, and inspire them to seek further ... and hopefully prayerfully seek guidance from God.

 

-Stephen

[mfbukowski]

 

 

 

 I think that if there is someone who is humble and open minded, it may not even be a person who is actively participating in the debate, but instead someone in the audience, then an argument may lead that person to believe that their previous set of assumptions or beliefs may need some revision, and inspire them to seek further ... and hopefully prayerfully seek guidance from God.

 

-Stephen

 

Of course no one would disagree with that, but that was not the point of my comment.  You side stepped the idea that one can ONLY get the right answers from God, not the argument.  Arguments can show flaws in reasoning but truth in religious matters only comes from God, not arguments.

 

Labored scriptural argument about "what the scriptures say" tell us nothing about why we should accept them as God's word in the first place.

 

Anyone can line up authorities on any side of any question, but that still doesn't tell you who is right.

[stephenpurdy]

Of course no one would disagree with that, but that was not the point of my comment.  You side stepped the idea that one can ONLY get the right answers from God, not the argument.  Arguments can show flaws in reasoning but truth in religious matters only comes from God, not arguments.

 

Labored scriptural argument about "what the scriptures say" tell us nothing about why we should accept them as God's word in the first place.

 

Anyone can line up authorities on any side of any question, but that still doesn't tell you who is right.

 

Many "orthodox" Christians believe that their interpretation of scripture has a lot of backing to it.  Whether it be scholars, tradition, etc.

 

If I can get them to the point that they say "Hmmm, wait a second..." and then they go ask God, then I think that my efforts were worth while.

 

-stephen

[mfbukowski]

Many "orthodox" Christians believe that their interpretation of scripture has a lot of backing to it.  Whether it be scholars, tradition, etc.

 

If I can get them to the point that they say "Hmmm, wait a second..." and then they go ask God, then I think that my efforts were worth while.

 

-stephen

We have a thread started on Orthodoxy and Mormonism, and I don't see that at all.

[stephenpurdy]

We have a thread started on Orthodoxy and Mormonism, and I don't see that at all.

 

Usually the persons in the debate themselves aren't going to be the ones; they have invested too much in it and try to save face.

 

Like I said, it is those quietly in the background who take notice.

 

-Stephen

[mfbukowski]

Many "orthodox" Christians believe that their interpretation of scripture has a lot of backing to it.  Whether it be scholars, tradition, etc.

 

If I can get them to the point that they say "Hmmm, wait a second..." and then they go ask God, then I think that my efforts were worth while.

 

-stephen

Fine then. CFR.

[stephenpurdy]

Fine then. CFR.

 

Myself. 

 

Before I was converted to Mormonism, I was an investigator, with many questions and doubts.  It was helpful to see long time members defend the faith.

 

-Stephen

[mfbukowski]

Myself. 

 

Before I was converted to Mormonism, I was an investigator, with many questions and doubts.  It was helpful to see long time members defend the faith.

 

-Stephen

I am really tired of your sidestepping.

 

That is not what you said and what the CFR was about.

Name specific scriptures that Eastern Orthodox Christians 

 

believe that their interpretation of scripture has a lot of backing to it.  Whether it be scholars, tradition, etc.

 

 I said that on the present thread on Orthodoxy and Mormonism there is NO evidence of special scriptural interpretations peculiar to Orthodox Christians.  I ask you for evidence of that and you present yourself.

 

Please indicate what specific scriptures or traditions you had then, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, which you thought, had a lot of backing through scholars and tradition, and then indicate how you apparently said to yourself

 

If I can get them to the point that they say "Hmmm, wait a second..." and then they go ask God, then I think that my efforts were worth while.

 

It seems to me you do not listen, you do not consider anyone else's point of view, and there is no give and take with you regardless of whether you understand them or their objections.

 

Now please satisfy the CFR as stated and quit sidestepping the issues.

 

You accuse others of performing "mental gymnastics", without a clue of what they are talking about,  now let's see YOU do some.

Edited July 19, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The core discussion here is whether or not arguments about scripture convert Orthodox Christians to a different church and what those scriptures and arguments are.

 

I am looking for what Orthodox Christians find as scriptural flaws in their interpretation of scripture.  You have said that they do, and I want to know what those issues are, if any

 

THAT is the issue.

Edited July 19, 2015 by mfbukowski

[williamsmith]

The Nicene Creed Trinity is an interesting thing.

 

It was clearly designed to include and be interpreted as basically "all" views of the time to satisify (being inclusive) of all the various theory's, depending on how various words were interpreted.

If it's interpreted as an LDS would interprete the creed, there isn't anything wrong with the "original" Nicene Creed.

 

One Substance for example can be interpreted as being Christ is literally the Son of the Father, i.e. their DNA/matter/substance is the same and as one.

 

Of course, the "changes" to the original creed, little text additions, changes/versions etc. is where it starts getting truly false.

Edited July 19, 2015 by williamsmith

[stephenpurdy]

The core discussion here is whether or not arguments about scripture convert Orthodox Christians to a different church and what those scriptures and arguments are.

 

I am looking for what Orthodox Christians find as scriptural flaws in their interpretation of scripture.  You have said that they do, and I want to know what those issues are, if any

 

THAT is the issue.

I didn't understand your issue. 

 

For starters, I said "orthodox" NOT referring to "Eastern Orthodoxy" , but meaning "mainstream Christianity". 

 

Stephen wrote:  Many "orthodox" Christians believe that their interpretation of scripture has a lot of backing to it.  Whether it be scholars, tradition, etc.

 

My only point was that mainstream Christians will point to their doctrines and defend those doctrines with scholars, tradition, etc.  and then they will say that Mormonism is not in line with "traditional Christianity" and that Mormonism is not in line with what was passed on from the apostles.

 

Then we reply also with history, scholars, etc. 

 

-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

  I believe that belief that God is wholly other and also became one of us is 'the very core of Christianity'.    

 

Yours is a belief in contradictions.  Like the Trinity.  "They" are "one" but they are also "three".  1+1+1= 1

 

You are used to believing in things that make no sense.  

 

So, the idea that there is an impassible divide between man and God, two completely metaphysically different beings, .... and then God surpasses that divide anyways ... is just part of your belief system.

 

However, If God can do it, then it wasn't impossible to begin with.  The scriptures teach that what seems impossible to man, God can do.  But it wasn't truly impossible; not truly a contradiction.

 

 

  Mine is grounded on the unprovable assumptions that there was no Great Apostasy and that the ancient church that compiled the Bible and the church established by Christ are one and the same.  .    

 

There is quite a bit of Biblical evidence that the writers of the New Testament knew that an apostasy was coming.  They predicted / fortold it.  I'm just saying.

 

 

 I believe in ex nihilo creation.   Nothing you can throw at me will convince me to believe otherwise because I accept four unprovable assumptions: ....    

 

We are different then.  I am open to anything.  I invite people to challenge my beliefs.  If they have something better, I am willing to consider it, pray about it, change my position and move forward with it.

 

 

   Like I said, it's all just interpretation, anyway.  None of this can be proved, neither my position nor yours.    

 

Well, if you are right, then I guess we are bound to be "tossed to and fro, by every wind of doctrine".

 

I reject that God would leave us "hanging" like that.

 

-Stephen

[saemo]

Indeed. I don't think Jesus would make such a request were it not possible. Catholics say such perfecting takes place in Purgatory. Many Protestants say God declares us to be perfect, even though we are not. The Mormon belief is another plausible way to obey Christ's command.

Just to throw in the Catholic POV here, we understand a lot things in the form of the Sacraments. For example, being one with the Father, has distinct Eucharistic connotations. We are perfected by Christ, by our restoration to the Father via the death and resurrection of Jesus, by our love for God, neighbor and enemy, and by the Sacraments. So it is happening here, and now. Purgatory is where we believe our souls have their final cleansing, healing is a better understanding, before taking a place in the immediate presence of God.

[stephenpurdy]

Can't help myself.  The other thread was closed and I had some things left to say (specifically in reference to posts 752 to 757).  I actually DO think the conversation was going somewhere ... finally ....   I thank you for that Spammer.

 

Spammer:  Our created characteristics and our very nature influence, but do not determine, our choices.

 

The very fact that you say that our nature "influences" our choices is an indictment, because a God creating Ex Nihilo could have created a being of any kind of nature that is logically possible.   Look at the world you live in, and then tell me that this makes sense to you.  God had any imaginable possibility of creating any kind of reality logically possible from God's own mind, and WE are the best God could do?

 

I'm sorry, but if you want to explain the world we live in with a reasonable theodicy, it makes more sense to understand that God is doing the best with what God had to work with.

 

Spammer:  That is the nature of free will. And in ex nihilo, God only determines all outcomes if free will doesn't intervene to break the causal chain.

 

The characteristics, essence, and nature of an individual DETERMINES the kinds of choices that an individual makes.  You cannot separate the two.  Again, Mark Hausam makes an excellent point that neither you or Daniel were able to address.  IF our choices do not reflect who we are, our nature and character, then they would not be our choices fundamentally, instead they would be contrary to who and what we are!  Is that free will??  For example, the reason why we can depend on God for always making correct and moral choices, is because God's choices reflect God's perfect and divine nature, His flawless character and morality.  We can depend on God always making choices which are consistent with God's nature. 

 

In terms of God's creations, even if you wanted to deny the created creature's, from your theological perspective, God's attributes such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, .... it is still logically possible to create creatures who are, by nature, honest and empathetic and wise and ETC.  The fact that a God creating Ex Nihilo decided not to create such a creature, but instead created ... well , us .... is indefensible.

 

Spammer:  The question of how free will is possible is relevent to both ex nihilo and ex materia creation, the former needing to find a way for the immaterial will to free itself from determination by God-caused spiritual causation and the latter needing to find a way for the material will to free itself from determination by material causation and the laws of physics. Either can only escape causal determination and acquire self-determination if free will is possible.

 

I can answer your argument very simply.  Do you believe God has free will?

 

If you answer no, then God does not truly love us.  If you answer yes ... well , then you have to accept that LDS theology allows for free will.  This is because the fundamental eternal existence of each individual with free will is just as fundamental as the eternal existence of God... who has free will.  In other words, to deny the possibility of free will to humanity in LDS theology, would be to deny free will to God Himself.  This is not a position that you can argue from.

 

Spammer:  Ex nihilo posits a God who creates free will by divine fiat; ex materia in the LDS tradition as you've described it posits a God that doesn't create free will.  You've argued that if free will is to be uncaused and therefore really free it must be posited as eternally existent and self-determining. Therefore, in ex materia it must be posited that each individual's will is eternally free, which means that each individual's consciousness and personhood are also eternal, as will, consciousness, and personhood are inseparable.  Thus, the human persons are uncreated, eternal beings.

 

The essential nature of the individual's free will is eternal in a certain sense, but that does not mean that each individual was in the position to act.  In that sense, God gave us the freedom to act out the desires, wishes etc. within the boundaries set in a certain arena.  In a certain sense God gave us freedom to act, but some core part of each individual has existed from all eternity.  I don't think we have the information available to us to say whether each individual was "conscious" or a "person" or "beings" as we understand those meanings.  That is well beyond the revelations we have been given on this subject.

 

Spammer:  How does that square with Joseph Smith's doctrine of the eternal pool of intelligences? Was this a pool of free-willed, conscious persons that existed eternally in that state prior to being united to spirit matter to create spirit children of Heavenly Father? Of was it a pool of pure intelligences that were yet lacking in consciousness, awareness, personhood, and all that goes along with that? It seems to me that to avoid the same outcome that you attribute to beings created ex nihilo, you need to posit the latter of these scenarios: human beings are eternal beings who are eternally free-willed, conscious persons and their properties of free will, consciousness and personhood are eternal and uncaused. In this scenario, it's not so much the existence of a pool of 'intelligences' as a pool of fully conscious, willing beings who have neither spirit nor body (what is their substance, then?). If the pooled 'intelligences' in the pre-spirit state are not yet conscious and self-aware, if they're not yet truly persons, then an external cause (God) is required to actualize their potential to become such. They are therefore 'caused' by God to be such and we run into the same problem of free will as an uncaused cause.

 

Again, you are speculating far beyond the information that we have available.  For all we know, the "eternal will" of an individual "chose" to partake in God's spiritual family.  Thus God's creating the spirit son or daughter was also dependent on the choice of that individual.  So, the arguments about 'causation' here are NOT the same as the obvious fact that in Ex Nihilo creation, God is certainly the cause of each individual in an absolute sense!  (Nice try though).

Spammer:  I don't have time today to go through all of the videos. I'll just put these comments here as a placeholder, to indicate things that are on my mind in response to a quick read of your responses.

 

I hope you do take the time Spammer.  This is not something that should be taken lightly.  I honestly believe that Christianity will not be taken seriously by the modern world with the flawed theology that is being presented by the mainstream.  I am honestly contending for the cause of Christ, and I do not like to see Him misrepresented as the monster (or the failure) that Ex Nihilo makes Him out to be.

 

-stephen

 

P.S.  I feel that there were many points made in posts 752 and 753 that were not addressed directly.  I think that those points are fundamental to the conversation.  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65449-the-nature-and-relationship-of-god-and-creation/page-38

Edited October 20, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[RevTestament]

Consider Hebrews chapter 1.

Hebrews 1 does not teach what most of the Christian world would like it to say (it does not teach the Trinity as most Christians understand it.) The chapter starts in the present and goes back in time describing Jesus and His relationship with God the Father. The chronology of Christ's appointment, incarnation and then resurrection and return to the right hand of the Father is given. 

 

The first scene, chronologically (verse 9), shows God the Father seeing the superior qualities of Jesus amongst the other "sons of God" or among the "morning stars" ­ Remember that Christ is called the "Bright Morning Star", an angelic title, but with superior qualities. (see Rev 22:16 and 2Pet.1:19 (see also Job 38:7 for another reference to the many "sons of God")

9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;

Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You

With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.

 

You see here that God (the God of Jesus) chose and anointed Jesus from among his "companions" (sometimes translated "fellows") ... his fellow angels and peers. Why was he chosen above the others? According to the verse we read, it was because Jesus loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.

We see in Hebrews chapter 1 that God the Father elevated this perfect angel to the status of "God", and to have the status of godhood forever.  Being spiritually perfect, Jesus deserved this title from before the foundation of the world.

8 But to the Son, He (God the Father) says:

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;

A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

 

As Jesus is elevated to the status of Deity, the Father gives the scepter/throne of the Father's kingdom to the Son, and it will be the Son's Kingdom forever.

7 And of the angels He says:  Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire.

The other angels are subject to Jesus. Elsewhere in the New Testament we see that Jesus was chosen by God the Father to organize the hosts of heaven, creating powers, thrones, principalities and so forth (see 1 Col 1:16) which rule these angelic hosts. Jesus was placed at the head of the hosts of heaven and became God's right hand; His Word. Jesus was also to be the Creator of the physical Universe as we know it (Heaven and Earth).  This is mentioned in verse 2 of this chapter (later in the chronology). Now verse 6...

6 But when He [the Father] brings the firstborn [Christ] into the world, He says:

Let all the angels of God worship Him.

 

Here we see this title of "firstborn" and how the firstborn was brought into the world in a unique and special way. Christ was considered to be "preeminent" among the other "sons of God". The first born son (especially in Hebrew culture) denotes authority and inheritance. And being that Jesus was elevated to Deity and preeminence above the others, He merits worship.  Again verse 6:

6 But when He brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

Let all the angels of God worship Him.

Please note above that Jesus was already the "Firstborn" before he was "brought" into the world.

In the Bible, Jesus has two titles of "sonship" in relation to God the Father 1) Firstbegotten and 2) Only begotten. These two titles have distinct significance.

The fact that Jesus was "first" indicates that there was a second, third, fourth, (i.e. others). The others were the sons of God / sons of the morning referenced in verses 6-­9.

Jesus was Firstborn (verse 6) according to the spirit amongst the sons of God (sons of the morning), and the Only Begotten Son in the Flesh amongst humanity. His birth into humanity as the Only Begotten Son is described in verse 5.

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: You are My Son, Today I have begotten You?

And again: I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son?

 

In one sense Jesus is not unique as a son of god, as there were others.  In that sense he is the "Firstborn", as there were other spirits who were foreordained to enter mortality and then return as resurrected beings to the presence of God.  As part of his chosen mission and inheritance, Jesus was also to be the Firstborn from the dead (ie resurrection).  All others will be resurrected as well.  However, NONE of the other sons of God were sons according to the flesh, as Jesus was.  In this way, Jesus was unique, the "Only Begotten" of the Father.

 

So in review, we have learned that Jesus was the Firstborn in the spirit, and He was chosen from among the "companions/fellows/sons of God" (verse 6-­9). but he was the ONLY son of God that was born of God again, this time in the flesh as the Messiah. Hence, the Only Begotten Son of God. Now verse 4.

4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

How did Jesus obtain the name and title of God? He "obtained" it by INHERITANCE, by being elevated from among the other sons of God to a higher position! Please note that Hebrews chapter 1 teaches that Jesus was "chosen/anointed" and that Jesus "obtained" the "more excellent name".  However, it is clearly well deserved. As the only perfect spirit, Christ had no flaws and therefore could unite His will perfectly with God's, thus he "became better than the angels" becoming "one" with God. Now read verses 2 and 3 understanding the CONTEXT as it was intended:

 

2 [God the Father] has in these last days spoken to us by His Son,

 

whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

 

3 who being the brightness of His glory and the

express image of His substance, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by

Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

 

 

Thus Jesus Christ, an exalted angel/son, who was "appointed" to be "heir of all things" and to be known as Jehovah in the Old Testament, and who now sits again on the right hand of the "Most High God" (also as Deity).

That is how subordinationism was taught in the New Testament and understood within the Apostles' New Testament Church. This was long before the changes in doctrine which occurred in the mid to second century A.D. and then solidified in Nicea and creeds which describe the Father and Son to be "coequal" or "Trinity", and other terms/ideas not found in scripture.

Again, please note that Christ is the "IMAGE of the Father's substance" as opposed to being the "same substance" or "one essence" or "single substance/essence" as many Trinitarians claim.

 

-Stephen

You have hit on the crux of the matter here. What the Bible says in Hebrews and Acts doesn't support the doctrines of the Trinity. It doesn't really disprove the general idea of 3 as one, but it does contradict the many other doctrines taught such as immutability. I would also point out, however, that it also teaches that Jesus was begotten as the Son before God sent Him to the earth. Then the question arises where and how was Jesus begotten? For Acts teaches us in the Greek that He was begotten anistemi Iesous anistemi or Yeshua was risen again.

[mfbukowski]

Can't help myself.  The other thread was closed and I had some things left to say (specifically in reference to posts 752 to 757).  I actually DO think the conversation was going somewhere ... finally ....   I thank you for that Spammer.

 

Spammer:  Our created characteristics and our very nature influence, but do not determine, our choices.

 

The very fact that you say that our nature "influences" our choices is an indictment, because a God creating Ex Nihilo could have created a being of any kind of nature that is logically possible.   Look at the world you live in, and then tell me that this makes sense to you.  God had any imaginable possibility of creating any kind of reality logically possible from God's own mind, and WE are the best God could do?

 

I'm sorry, but if you want to explain the world we live in with a reasonable theodicy, it makes more sense to understand that God is doing the best with what God had to work with.

 

Spammer:  That is the nature of free will. And in ex nihilo, God only determines all outcomes if free will doesn't intervene to break the causal chain.

 

The characteristics, essence, and nature of an individual DETERMINES the kinds of choices that an individual makes.  You cannot separate the two.  Again, Mark Hausam makes an excellent point that neither you or Daniel were able to address.  IF our choices do not reflect who we are, our nature and character, then they would not be our choices fundamentally, instead they would be contrary to who and what we are!  Is that free will??  For example, the reason why we can depend on God for always making correct and moral choices, is because God's choices reflect God's perfect and divine nature, His flawless character and morality.  We can depend on God always making choices which are consistent with God's nature. 

 

In terms of God's creations, even if you wanted to deny the created creature's, from your theological perspective, God's attributes such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, .... it is still logically possible to create creatures who are, by nature, honest and empathetic and wise and ETC.  The fact that a God creating Ex Nihilo decided not to create such a creature, but instead created ... well , us .... is indefensible.

 

Spammer:  The question of how free will is possible is relevent to both ex nihilo and ex materia creation, the former needing to find a way for the immaterial will to free itself from determination by God-caused spiritual causation and the latter needing to find a way for the material will to free itself from determination by material causation and the laws of physics. Either can only escape causal determination and acquire self-determination if free will is possible.

 

I can answer your argument very simply.  Do you believe God has free will?

 

If you answer no, then God does not truly love us.  If you answer yes ... well , then you have to accept that LDS theology allows for free will.  This is because the fundamental eternal existence of each individual with free will is just as fundamental as the eternal existence of God... who has free will.  In other words, to deny the possibility of free will to humanity in LDS theology, would be to deny free will to God Himself.  This is not a position that you can argue from.

 

Spammer:  Ex nihilo posits a God who creates free will by divine fiat; ex materia in the LDS tradition as you've described it posits a God that doesn't create free will.  You've argued that if free will is to be uncaused and therefore really free it must be posited as eternally existent and self-determining. Therefore, in ex materia it must be posited that each individual's will is eternally free, which means that each individual's consciousness and personhood are also eternal, as will, consciousness, and personhood are inseparable.  Thus, the human persons are uncreated, eternal beings.

 

The essential nature of the individual's free will is eternal in a certain sense, but that does not mean that each individual was in the position to act.  In that sense, God gave us the freedom to act out the desires, wishes etc. within the boundaries set in a certain arena.  In a certain sense God gave us freedom to act, but some core part of each individual has existed from all eternity.  I don't think we have the information available to us to say whether each individual was "conscious" or a "person" or "beings" as we understand those meanings.  That is well beyond the revelations we have been given on this subject.

 

Spammer:  How does that square with Joseph Smith's doctrine of the eternal pool of intelligences? Was this a pool of free-willed, conscious persons that existed eternally in that state prior to being united to spirit matter to create spirit children of Heavenly Father? Of was it a pool of pure intelligences that were yet lacking in consciousness, awareness, personhood, and all that goes along with that? It seems to me that to avoid the same outcome that you attribute to beings created ex nihilo, you need to posit the latter of these scenarios: human beings are eternal beings who are eternally free-willed, conscious persons and their properties of free will, consciousness and personhood are eternal and uncaused. In this scenario, it's not so much the existence of a pool of 'intelligences' as a pool of fully conscious, willing beings who have neither spirit nor body (what is their substance, then?). If the pooled 'intelligences' in the pre-spirit state are not yet conscious and self-aware, if they're not yet truly persons, then an external cause (God) is required to actualize their potential to become such. They are therefore 'caused' by God to be such and we run into the same problem of free will as an uncaused cause.

 

Again, you are speculating far beyond the information that we have available.  For all we know, the "eternal will" of an individual "chose" to partake in God's spiritual family.  Thus God's creating the spirit son or daughter was also dependent on the choice of that individual.  So, the arguments about 'causation' here are NOT the same as the obvious fact that in Ex Nihilo creation, God is certainly the cause of each individual in an absolute sense!  (Nice try though).

Spammer:  I don't have time today to go through all of the videos. I'll just put these comments here as a placeholder, to indicate things that are on my mind in response to a quick read of your responses.

 

I hope you do take the time Spammer.  This is not something that should be taken lightly.  I honestly believe that Christianity will not be taken seriously by the modern world with the flawed theology that is being presented by the mainstream.  I am honestly contending for the cause of Christ, and I do not like to see Him misrepresented as the monster (or the failure) that Ex Nihilo makes Him out to be.

 

-stephen

 

P.S.  I feel that there were many points made in posts 752 and 753 that were not addressed directly.  I think that those points are fundamental to the conversation.  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65449-the-nature-and-relationship-of-god-and-creation/page-38

I find this highly convoluted

 

You continually think in a linear fashion as if there is only one way to interpret each word and that each word has almost a numerical value generated in one's mind with no variations possible.  You believe that ex nihilo logically entails determinism- it does not.

 

You are obviously an intelligent fellow, but honestly your arguments date from about 1200 AD as if nothing has happened in logic from the time of Aquinas.

 

Soon you will be debating whether or not two angels can be at the same location ("dancing on a pinhead")

 

You do not bring into account any notion of ambiguity in language, other possible interpretations or the fact that many scriptures are allegorical and symbolic.

 

I have mentioned compatibilism to you more than once, and yet you refuse to reply or take it into account.  Free will and determinism are not incompatible, and then there is self-determination, where one makes one's own rules and then freely decides to act as if one is determined when one is in fact not.

 

A diet is an example- yes we can eat the chocolate cake but because we have promised ourselves not to, we do not.  Does that make our choice "determined"?

 

Obviously that makes the question itself ambiguous.  Yes, I am determined by a choice but it was a choice I freely made.  It is not one or the other.  And maybe tomorrow I will eat the cake and cancel my previous determination to not do so.  Is cancelling a promise the same as "breaking it"?  Does it matter?

 

God could have created ex nihilo and then decided to limit his role in areas about which he decided he should be.  Perhaps he allowed evolution or directed it for example, for teaching purposes or because he wanted to comply with other natural laws he did not generate.  Or perhaps he decided to create some new natural laws.  Or perhaps, perhaps perhaps.  Perhaps he lets the universe run pretty much on its own and yet creates "miracles" as he sees fit.  Perhaps he doesn't do any of that.  Perhaps he makes every decision about every sparrow falling from its nest, as is implied in the gospels.   Perhaps he delegates that to angels. Perhaps sparrows falling are part of natural law which he observes and knows but decides not to interfere.

 

There are so many alternate ways of seeing this, they are uncountable

 

Were I Spammer I would not even answer.

[mfbukowski]

 IF our choices do not reflect who we are, our nature and character, then they would not be our choices fundamentally, instead they would be contrary to who and what we are!  Is that free will??  For example, the reason why we can depend on God for always making correct and moral choices, is because God's choices reflect God's perfect and divine nature, His flawless character and morality.  We can depend on God always making choices which are consistent with God's nature. 

 

Just as an example, this is a circular argument.

 

What does the word "nature" mean??  The nature of a man is to be manly, the nature of God is to be godly, the nature of a dog is to be like a dog.

 

In other words, "nature" is a meaningless word on its own.  It is a zero, a placeholder in a sentence used to make a point.

 

The nature of a liar is to lie, the nature of someone with integrity is to tell the truth.  

 

What does the word "nature" ADD TO THE MEANING OF THAT SENTENCE?   Nothing.  People with integrity do not lie.  Liars do lie.  Dogs act like dogs.  Men act like men.

 

The word "nature" is useless.

 

God's "choices" do not reflect his "nature" they are what God is. We define "God" by the choices we imagine him making.  He is the Ideal Human.

 

All this says is that God always acts morally.  That is an assumption you are making.  Fine, I agree.  In fact we define morality by the way we imagine God would act in a situation.

 

What is the "right" thing to do in this situation?  What do the scriptures say?   What would Christ do?

 

Or if an atheist, one might ask "What are the rules of morality I have accepted for myself, and how do they apply to this situation?"  What would a good Communist do?  What would a good Republican do?  A person pro-choice?  A person anti-abortion?

 

"Nature" is an irrelevant addition that serves no purpose but to confuse the conversation.  What is the "nature" of a Communist?  Of a Republican?

 

How is their choice limited by their "nature"?   It's a ridiculous question.

 

People do what they think is right, or they do wrong intentionally.  They violate their own or the society's standards of morality.  We postulate that God is "good" and always makes "moral choices"

 

Those are our assumptions to start out with.

 

It has nothing to do with "nature", a completely meaningless word.

 

OK  that's it for today.  

Edited October 20, 2015 by mfbukowski

[stephenpurdy]

I find this highly convoluted

 

You continually think in a linear fashion as if there is only one way to interpret each word and that each word has almost a numerical value generated in one's mind with no variations possible.  You believe that ex nihilo logically entails determinism- it does not.

 

Sure it does, and quite frankly, those from the days of Aquinas have not addressed this, which now appears to demonstrate that you haven't bothered to understand the concepts that I have presented either, which surprises me. 

 

There are two arguments.  You, like Daniel and Spammer, have not addressed the first one at all.   Nobody here has even attempted to address it and the second one which you attempted to address cannot be dealt with until we deal with the first.

 

Watch the video from 2:38 until 7:10

 

That is just a few minutes, and the argument is not convoluted at all.  It is very straightforward.   Many people think that my argument is that God's foreknowledge  is causative.  That is not the argument, and I am very careful to illustrate that. 

 

Remember, this is the illustration (from 2:38 to 7:10) whereby there are no nature or essence (or whatever you want to call it) which influences choices.  Here, there is no "created characteristics" which would influence an individual make any particular choice.  In other words, the "choices" in this illustration are not a reflection of who or what we are as a person.  

 

Also, I am not arguing that "free choices" are random.  I am saying that even if they were random, God still determines outcomes in Ex Nihilo theology.  The video explains with illustrations.  Once you have this first argument understood, then it is easier to go on to the next.

 

 

As for Spammer, I agree with you that he should NOT respond ....  That is ... he should not respond if he is not willing to watch 4 minutes, think about it for a bit, understand what is being said, and then thoughtfully respond.  In fact, nobody should respond if they are not willing to do that.  Daniel has been dancing around it for months and he never even made an attempt... just wasted time.

 

 

-Stephen

Edited October 21, 2015 by stephenpurdy