In the Beginning....

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

The pearl in the box!  The light of Christ is so thoroughly connected with our spirits that we are essentially one already, and we come to realize that we need not separate ourselves from (or perhaps more importantly from the usual perspective, for) the love of Christ (Romans 8:35-39).

Beautiful, well said! Thanks!

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 3/22/2022 at 7:16 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Latter-day Saint theology has it that each of us has an eternal spark of life -- coeternal with God -- and that God clothes that spark of life in a spiritual body (before the foundation of the world), and allows normal human reproduction to clothe that spirit in a physical body.  Finally, at the resurrection, all bodies will be made incorruptible and eternal.  A four-step sequence, from spark to apotheosis.

Genesis 1:1-3 is a series of circumstantial clauses, ending in a main clause.  Gen 1:1 is normally mistranslated.  It should read:  "When the Gods set about to organize the heavens and the earth, ...." from pre-existing material.  There was no beginning, there shall be no end.  God is part of space & time.  The universe is material, including spiritual material -- which is merely finer than the material we humans know about.  Nothing is immaterial.

As man now is, God once was; as God is, man may become.  All of us are of the genus and species of God.

I appreciate your thoughtful response, and want to see if I can get your wheels turning a little bit. 

The language you use as you describe "an eternal spark of life" works for me, other than the "coeternal with God" part. Clothing the spark of life has more than a little resonance with the way Catholics often understand the material creation--as a work of art that gestures to the Artist. 

I see my relation to God as a creature to his creator, and I believe LDS would see the relation more as procreator to a more progressed procreator. Please don't hesitate to clarify/correct, I may just be misunderstanding.

Regarding your Genesis 1:1-3 ideas, I confess that I tend to avoid arguments over the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words. I've just encountered too many folks who aren't really experts in this area, but who nevertheless trot out the "bad translation" notion as a form of intellectual posturing. In my experience, doctrinal differences are almost never due to bad translations. Rather, the differences are over what the words, accurately translated, mean. That probably isn't the case with you, I've just run into too many street preachers and evangelists, oddly, Calvinists of one flavor or another, who learn a little Greek or Hebrew and then want to act like they're Bruce Metzger or St. Paul. So I'm no expert in the languages and I've been banged up in this area a little bit.

Anyway, in the interest of furthering conversation and inviting you to share your perspective, I'll quote a little from A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament, by John Bergsma and Brad Pitre. I rely on it in my Bible Study class, and go to sources like this when these issues arise:

Quote

The opening line of Genesis reads, according to the Hebrew Masoretic Text and all ancient versions: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). The Hebrew language has no exact word for "cosmos" or "universe". "The heavens and the earth" expresses the same concept by means of a merism--a figure of speech by which the parts are used to refer to the whole. (Interestingly, in all of ancient Near Eastern literature, the merism of "heavens and earth" as a reference to the cosmos finds a parallel only in ancient Egyptian texts.). This grand opening line serves as a summary statement and suggests the calling into existence of the cosmos without the presence of any preexisting substance. Indeed, the Hebrew word bara' , "to create" (Gen 1:1), is only ever used in the Bible with God as its subject and never with an accusative of material indicating a substance from which he created. However, the newly existent creation is not called into existence in a finished state; the sacred author notes that it was "without form and void" (Gen 1:2). In the Hebrew language, "without form and void" is an onomatopoeic phrase, tohu wabohu ("formless and empty"). These two privations--lack of form and lack of content--will be addressed systematically in the succession of six days. (Bergsma & Pitre, 2018, 96)

I'm glad to continue this exchange, although I am saying at the outset that I'm not an expert in the languages. I'm someone who relies on people who are and I try not to be an obstacle to others.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

56 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

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

The language you use as you describe "an eternal spark of life" works for me, other than the "coeternal with God" part. Clothing the spark of life has more than a little resonance with the way Catholics often understand the material creation--as a work of art that gestures to the Artist. 

I see my relation to God as a creature to his creator, and I believe LDS would see the relation more as procreator to a more progressed procreator. Please don't hesitate to clarify/correct, I may just be misunderstanding.

Regarding your Genesis 1:1-3 ideas, I confess that I tend to avoid arguments over the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words. I've just encountered too many folks who aren't really experts in this area, but who nevertheless trot out the "bad translation" notion as a form of intellectual posturing. In my experience, doctrinal differences are almost never due to bad translations. Rather, the differences are over what the words, accurately translated, mean. That probably isn't the case with you, I've just run into too many street preachers and evangelists, oddly, Calvinists of one flavor or another, who learn a little Greek or Hebrew and then want to act like they're Bruce Metzger or St. Paul. So I'm no expert in the languages and I've been banged up in this area a little bit.

Anyway, in the interest of furthering conversation and inviting you to share your perspective, I'll quote a little from A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament, by John Bergsma and Brad Pitre. I rely on it in my Bible Study class, and go to sources like this when these issues arise:........................

Normative Judeo-Christian theology is based on creation from nothing by a Creator who is sui generis, who is outside time & space, and who creates everything.  He is the only Necessary Being, and all else (including us) is Contingent.  Such norms have logical consequences, and one can see that in the vast efforts of systematic theologians like St Thomas Aquinas.  The LDS Church on the other hand, has no systematic theology, and much of what it has is more or less doctrinal and theologically speculative.  One thing is abundantly clear, however:  The LDS faith fully rejects the Judeo-Christian theological norms -- the underlying base.

The late Ephraim Speiser, Jewish translator for both the Jewish Publication Society of America (JPSA) and the Anchor Bible translation-commentary on Genesis (Doubleday, 1964), frankly declared that, even if we don't like the theological ramifications, we must allow the text of Genesis 1 to speak for itself -- and that means accepting the deliberate meaning of that text is creation from pre-existing materials, just as is true in the Babylonian creation story (which has the same items created in the same order as in Genesis 1).  I was surprised by his frankness back in the mid-60s when I read him as a young student in Jerusalem.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

In my experience, doctrinal differences are almost never due to bad translations. Rather, the differences are over what the words, accurately translated, mean. 

This happens to be one of the times when doctrinal differences are indeed due to bad/different translations.  The NIV translation supports your doctrine, while the NRSV supports ours and more closely mirrors the account in the Pearl of Great Price where God "organized" the world.  It appears that early church fathers up through modern scholars are divided on the issue of how it should be properly translated. 

See below (the red is mine):

Quote

GENESIS 1:1-2. IN THE BEGINNING

1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless(Hebrew: to·hu) and empty. (Hebrew: wa·bo·hu) Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God’s Spirit (Hebrew: weruah elo·him—wind/spirit/breath of God) was hovering over the surface of the waters.

The original Hebrew for verse 1 is ambiguous and allows various translations:

• The NIV translates verse 1 as an independent sentence—”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Verse 2 describes the formless nature of the initial stage of that creation—”Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.” This wording suggests that God created the heavens and earth from nothing (often referred to as ex nihilo—Latin for “from nothing”).

• But the NRSV translates verse 1 as a dependent clause supporting verse 2—”In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth” (v. 1), “the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters” (v. 2). Note the “when” in the first verse. This makes it sound as if the formless, empty earth existed prior to God’s creative act, and the creation was a matter of organizing the existing chaos—making something lovely out of something not lovely. This wording suggests that God did not create the heavens and earth from nothing (ex nihilo) but rather made something good from something not good.

Both translations are defensible, and scholars are divided on this matter:

• Von Rad strongly favors verse 1 as an independent sentence (as in the NIV, where God creates from nothing). He says, “Syntactically perhaps both translations are possible, but not theologically” (Von Rad, 48).

• Brueggemann notes that either translation is possible and says, “The very ambiguity of creation from nothing and creation from chaos is a rich expository possibility. We need not choose between them, even as the text does not” (Brueggemann, 29).

• Roop notes that either translation is possible and that the ambiguity frees us “to focus on the central affirmation of the text, God creating a livable world” (Roop, 25).

• Wenham understands verse 1 as an independent sentence, as in the NIV, with the effect that God created the earth ex nihilo—from nothing (Wenham, 11).

• Gene Tucker takes the other side, saying, “The second verse describes what ‘existed’ before creation…. Consequently, in the Old Testament view, creation was not ex nihilo, but out of chaos” (in Craddock, et. al., 301).

The early church fathers were likewise divided:

• Augustine said, “Scripture called heaven and earth that formless matter of the universe, which was changed into formed and beautiful natures by God’s ineffable command” (Louth, 1). In other words, God organized the chaos rather than creating from nothing.

• Nemesius of Emesa said that God “brought all things into being out of nothing” (Louth, 2).

• Basil the Great said, “It appears, indeed, that even before this world an order of things existed of which our mind can form an idea but of which we can say nothing” (Louth, 2). In other words, God organized the chaos rather than creating from nothing.

• Rather than defending one interpretation or the other, Chrysostom advised caution: “Let us accept what is said with much gratitude, not overstepping the proper limit nor busying ourselves with matters beyond us” (Louth, 3).

Several scriptures suggest that God created ex nihilo (Genesis 1:1-3; Exodus 20:11; Psalm 104:24; Jeremiah 10:12; John 1:2-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2; 11:3) (Towner, 18). One is explicit: “For thus says Yahweh who created the heavens, the God who formed the earth and made it, who established it and didn’t create it a waste, who formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18). [I personally don't think these passages suggest ex nihlo creation and are not explicit, especially when you look at other translations live the NRSV.]

“In the beginning” (v. 1). The phrase, “In the beginning,” “anticipates the ‘end’ of the universe and human history” (Mathews, 126). That comment causes us to remember that the Bible deals with the end of time as well as its beginning—and that the New Testament closes with the Book of Revelation, which focuses on eschatology (last things) just as the Old Testament opens with the Book of Genesis, which focuses on creation (first things).

“In the beginning” cannot mean the absolute beginning, because God is eternal and had no beginning. “In the beginning,” therefore, must refer only to the beginning of creation.

https://sermonwriter.com/biblical-commentary-old/genesis-11-5/

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

On 3/21/2022 at 9:20 AM, MrShorty said:

Ultimately, I agree with Ostler. The Church hasn't thought hard enough on these kinds of questions, so there aren't solid answers to what the Church really believes. There are a variety of viewpoints among Church members. Perhaps, at some point, we need to come to some consensus what we think.

To do so would confuse science with religion even further, and is not going to happen.

We have a "world" here which we on faith postulate God gave us, how is unknowable and irrelevant.

The WHY is what give us purpose in life, each of us personally, and THAT is what we need, a purpose for living.

The answer is that we have this world- this experiential context of knowledge- to become like the Ideal Human who gave us this world. To follow Him is to follow the Covenant Path.

The idea itself gives us purpose and a reason to be the best we can be, and what is most important, this paradigm can be confirmed only by testimonies within one's heart, the only way we can know the paradigm is "true".

Further confusion with other contexts provides no answers 

Edited March 24, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

This happens to be one of the times when doctrinal differences are indeed due to bad/different translations.  The NIV translation supports your doctrine, while the NRSV supports ours and more closely mirrors the account in the Pearl of Great Price where God "organized" the world.  It appears that early church fathers up through modern scholars are divided on the issue of how it should be properly translated. 

See below (the red is mine):

 

Respectfully, I think you are exactly making my point.

 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Respectfully, I think you are exactly making my point.

Sorry, I guess I don't understand your point then.  

It sounded like you were saying that doctrinal differences are almost never due to bad/wrong translations.   You argued that most differences arise from "accurately translated" verses with semantical arguments/differences stemming from that (like two people disagreeing over the interpretation of the same verse from the same Bible translation). 

In this case we have two different translations leading to two completely different meanings.  Which translation is more accurate?  The NIV or the NRSV?  It doesn't seem that scholars can agree.   If they all agreed on which translation was more accurate, and yet theologians still disagreed on the interpretation of the verse, then your point would be more representative of the disagreement here.     My point is that we are not starting from a translation that we can all agree upon as being "accurately translated".  Therefore the disagreement stems from a translation issue rather than a semantic issue.  

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by pogi

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Regarding your Genesis 1:1-3 ideas, I confess that I tend to avoid arguments over the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words. I've just encountered too many folks who aren't really experts in this area, but who nevertheless trot out the "bad translation" notion as a form of intellectual posturing. In my experience, doctrinal differences are almost never due to bad translations. Rather, the differences are over what the words, accurately translated, mean. That probably isn't the case with you, I've just run into too many street preachers and evangelists, oddly, Calvinists of one flavor or another, who learn a little Greek or Hebrew and then want to act like they're Bruce Metzger or St. Paul. So I'm no expert in the languages and I've been banged up in this area a little bit.

Anyway, in the interest of furthering conversation and inviting you to share your perspective, I'll quote a little from A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament, by John Bergsma and Brad Pitre. I rely on it in my Bible Study class, and go to sources like this when these issues arise:

As others have pointed out, this is a situation where theology is driving the interpretation (and translation) rather than letting the original understanding of the meaning of the text determine the theology and translation.

The development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo is interesting to me, and it seems to play a role in so many doctrinal developments over time (like monotheism and the classification of angels, for example). 

For two examples of studies that have addressed this topic from an Latter Day Saint point of view, see:

Keith Norman, "Ex Nihilo: The Development of the Doctrines of God and Creation in early Christianity", BYU Studies, 17, no. 3 (Spring 1977).

Blake T. Ostler, "Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought", Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Volume 17, Number 2 (2005).

And there are many similar studies from outside of LDS circles, such as:

Hubler, James Noel, "Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy Through Aquinas" (1995). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations, 980.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

This happens to be one of the times when doctrinal differences are indeed due to bad/different translations.  The NIV translation supports your doctrine, while the NRSV supports ours and more closely mirrors the account in the Pearl of Great Price where God "organized" the world.  It appears that early church fathers up through modern scholars are divided on the issue of how it should be properly translated. 

See below (the red is mine):

 

And in addition to translation issues, we have to acknowledge that every word of text on every scroll, papyrus, etc. was written by a human hand connected to a human brain receiving messages that probably no other humans could hear.

Perhaps I am wrong, but in my opinion the primary "translation" to worry about is the first time the words were placed on "paper" written by a human hand.

For those who have had religious experiences from St. Theresa, St. Francis even to Padre Pio and Joseph Smith, the children of Fatima and all others, the problem is putting that experience into words.

That would include those of us today who believe we have had direct contact with Heaven in one respect or another.

Words just don't match the sensation of Intelligence pouring into our little human minds while trying to represent the experience.  To me THAT is the real problem with the concept of "translation" itself.

[Saint Bonaventure]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Sorry, I guess I don't understand your point then.  

It sounded like you were saying that doctrinal differences are almost never due to bad/wrong translations.   You argued that most differences arise from "accurately translated" verses with semantical arguments/differences stemming from that (like two people disagreeing over the interpretation of the same verse from the same Bible translation). 

In this case we have two different translations leading to two completely different meanings.  Which translation is more accurate?  The NIV or the NRSV?  It doesn't seem that scholars can agree.   If they all agreed on which translation was more accurate, and yet theologians still disagreed on the interpretation of the verse, then your point would be more representative of the disagreement here.     My point is that we are not starting from a translation that we can all agree upon as being "accurately translated".  Therefore the disagreement stems from a translation issue rather than a semantic issue.  

 

I gently, but firmly, believe that your comments are about interpretation, and not about translation. Very few people have anything approaching the knowledge necessary to hash through translation issues in an informed way. I certainly am not qualified to do that kind of thing, not even after wondering if I saw a rosary pattern in my parfait. The way those three little oat crunchies line up with that blueberry....

As to particular translations--the NRSV has the impramatur of the Church--as do the RSV, the Douay-Rheims, the NAB, and many other translations. The NIV does not have the impramatur of the Church, as it neglected to translate 7 of the Old Testament books. I've seen a Catholic edition of the NIV Psalms, but the whole NIV Bible? No.

I respect your right to interpret Sacred Scripture and am delighted to have a conversation on these matters with a Latter-day Saint. I firmly believe, though, that we are discussing Sacred Scripture at the level of interpretation, and not at the level of translation.

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I gently, but firmly, believe that your comments are about interpretation, and not about translation. Very few people have anything approaching the knowledge necessary to hash through translation issues in an informed way. I certainly am not qualified to do that kind of thing, not even after wondering if I saw a rosary pattern in my parfait. The way those three little oat crunchies line up with that blueberry....

As to particular translations--the NRSV has the impramatur of the Church--as do the RSV, the Douay-Rheims, the NAB, and many other translations. The NIV does not have the impramatur of the Church, as it neglected to translate 7 of the Old Testament books. I've seen a Catholic edition of the NIV Psalms, but the whole NIV Bible? No.

I respect your right to interpret Sacred Scripture and am delighted to have a conversation on these matters with a Latter-day Saint. I firmly believe, though, that we are discussing Sacred Scripture at the level of interpretation, and not at the level of translation.

 

If we are both reading and arguing from the same translation, then yes, it is an interpretation issue.  In that all different translations originate from the same original text, I suppose it could be argued that all translations are really just interpretations of the original text, and therefore all of translation issues are really just interpretation issues at their core.  The difference is that translations are one step removed from the original language, which then need to be interpreted further by the reader (now considered an interpretation of an interpretation) potentially compounding the difficulty in interpreting meaning further.  

The difference between the NIV and the NRSV is technically a translation issue however, as they are one step removed from the original language and tend to lend themselves to very different interpretations of meaning. 

If we are both reading from the NRSV (which it seems we both favor in regard to this passage) and still come to different conclusions, then I agree that our disagreement is a matter of interpretation.  Let it be known that I stand on team Augustine and Basil the Great on this one.   

Unless we are reading from the original script, translations unavoidably become an issue, however.  Sometimes subtly so, sometimes monumentally so.

  

Edited March 24, 2022 by pogi

[Saint Bonaventure]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

As others have pointed out, this is a situation where theology is driving the interpretation (and translation) rather than letting the original understanding of the meaning of the text determine the theology and translation.

The development of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo is interesting to me, and it seems to play a role in so many doctrinal developments over time (like monotheism and the classification of angels, for example). 

For two examples of studies that have addressed this topic from an Latter Day Saint point of view, see:

Keith Norman, "Ex Nihilo: The Development of the Doctrines of God and Creation in early Christianity", BYU Studies, 17, no. 3 (Spring 1977).

Blake T. Ostler, "Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought", Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Volume 17, Number 2 (2005).

And there are many similar studies from outside of LDS circles, such as:

Hubler, James Noel, "Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy Through Aquinas" (1995). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations, 980.

Thanks for the sources. I see that Ostler is on your list, and he was cited earlier in this thread. I'll have to check out his work.

As high-flown as these conversations can become, there is plenty at stake. For Catholics, God is "unlimited being" or existence itself. God is a oneness that lacks nothing. if there are multiple Gods, then Catholic belief is problematic because those Gods would limit each other in some way. None of those Gods would be truly infinite and so they would be "gods" (powerful creatures; maybe angels?), instead of "God" the all-powerful creator. Logically, if God is existence itself, then there can only be one God.

I've read many different things about LDS notions of God. Sometimes LDS writers/posters insist on three Gods who are separate beings, but always in accord. Sometimes LDS writers/posters emphasize multiple gods (Gods?) in various senses. Apparently, exactness on these points isn't ultra important for LDS folks. Maybe there is tolerance for varying points of view?

Anyway, I find it all very interesting.    

 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And in addition to translation issues, we have to acknowledge that every word of text on every scroll, papyrus, etc. was written by a human hand connected to a human brain receiving messages that probably no other humans could hear.

Perhaps I am wrong, but in my opinion the primary "translation" to worry about is the first time the words were placed on "paper" written by a human hand.

For those who have had religious experiences from St. Theresa, St. Francis even to Padre Pio and Joseph Smith, the children of Fatima and all others, the problem is putting that experience into words.

That would include those of us today who believe we have had direct contact with Heaven in one respect or another.

Words just don't match the sensation of Intelligence pouring into our little human minds while trying to represent the experience.  To me THAT is the real problem with the concept of "translation" itself.

Agreed.

Quote

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men;

We will never peer through the glass clearly in mortality, or better still, remove the glass completely from before our eyes.  Even in pure experience directly communicated from God, we are left to interpret that experience in the context of currently held perspectives as to what it means in relation to what we believe we know.   It goes through further degradation in trying to interpret that interpretation of an ineffable experience into written or spoken language.   

Clearly, a perfect understanding is not a requirement by God, and in fact seems to be intentionally vailed from our eyes.  The important thing to him is how we treat what limited light we have been given...and then he adds more, line upon line. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

As high-flown as these conversations can become, there is plenty at stake. For Catholics, God is "unlimited being" or existence itself. God is a oneness that lacks nothing. if there are multiple Gods, then Catholic belief is problematic because those Gods would limit each other in some way. None of those Gods would be truly infinite and so they would be "gods" (powerful creatures; maybe angels?), instead of "God" the all-powerful creator. Logically, if God is existence itself, then there can only be one God.

All problems of translation and/or interpretation and language itself.  It is less important that we have perfect understanding of God, and more important what we do with the imperfect and limited understanding God has bestowed upon us.  It’s a case of orthodoxy vs orthopraxy here.

We believe that ultimately we will be judged by what we have done with the light we have been given, and not on whether our understanding in mortality aligned perfectly with some absolute truth or the nature of God.

In regards to your comment about God being "existence itself" - can you explain what you mean by that?  I don't understand Catholics to be pantheists, but that language sounds very pantheistic to me.  Once again, a problem of language and semantics.  

Edited March 24, 2022 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

For Catholics, God is "unlimited being" or existence itself.

I don't understand that.  All that exists is "God"?

I know it is a mystery, but does God explain a little more clearly ?

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

All problems of translation and/or interpretation.  It is less important that you have perfect understanding of God, and more important what you do with the imperfect and limited understanding God has bestowed upon you.  Orthodoxly vs orthopraxy.  

We believe that ultimately we will be judged by what we have done with the light we have been given, and not on whether our understanding in mortality aligned perfectly with some absolute truth. 

In regards to your comment about God being "existence itself" - can you explain what you mean by that?  I don't understand Catholics to be pantheists, but that language sounds very pantheistic to me.  Once again, a problem of language and semantics.  

Didn't see this before I posted mine!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Maybe there is tolerance for varying points of view?

Most certainly there is; the highest ordinances (sacraments) are permitted to be given to one who gets a "temple recommend" after an interview with a ward "pastor" ( a bishop in our jargon) in which one is asked printed, standard questions which are based primarily on righteousness behaviors, not abstract doctrines.

Those questions can be found here:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-temple-recommend

Edited March 24, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Saint Bonaventure]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

All problems of translation and/or interpretation and language itself.  It is less important that we have perfect understanding of God, and more important what we do with the imperfect and limited understanding God has bestowed upon us.  It’s a case of orthodoxy vs orthopraxy here.

We believe that ultimately we will be judged by what we have done with the light we have been given, and not on whether our understanding in mortality aligned perfectly with some absolute truth or the nature of God.

In regards to your comment about God being "existence itself" - can you explain what you mean by that?  I don't understand Catholics to be pantheists, but that language sounds very pantheistic to me.  Once again, a problem of language and semantics.  

I do not believe God is "present" everywhere by being identical to everything in the universe; that would be pantheism.

I believe God is present in the universe by affecting every part of it and sustaining it. Briefly, there is no single place or time that contains God. All places and times exist because God is existence itself. God perceives all times and places in a single, eternal "now" and so is present in it but not actually part of it.

Consequently, because God affects, sustains, and perceives all of existence, he is all-knowing, i.e., he knows all real and potentially real things.

Edited March 25, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I do not believe God is "present" everywhere by being identical to everything in the universe; that would be pantheism.

I believe God is present in the universe by affecting every part of it and sustaining it. Briefly, there is no single place or time that contains God. All places and times exist because God is existence itself. God perceives all times and places in a single, eternal "now" and so is present in it but not actually part of it.

Consequently, because God affects, sustains, and perceives all of existence, he is all-knowing, i.e., he knows all real and potentially real things.

This is similar to our view of the "Light of Christ": as within our solar system the sun's light and gravity reaches and influences absolutely everything, God's light or intelligence reaches and influences the farthest nooks and crannies of our universe and other worlds He has organized.

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't understand that.  All that exists is "God"?

I know it is a mystery, but does God explain a little more clearly ?

Mark, hey.

He means that all existence is contingent upon God, upon Him Who Is. (Burning Bush) Only God is not contingent. 

It seems that by getting away from an ex nihilo creator, some problems (evil) are more easily solved while others emerge. 

That we exist independently of God or not, has moral ramifications. 

God bless,

Rory

 

[3DOP]

The Scriptures say that "to whom much is given, much is required." 

It seems like there would be less required, for those who have autonomous self-existence.

This is not an argument about what is true or false. Merely an observation to support what I said above. If we exist independently of God, our debt to Him is not the same as if we would be nothing without God.

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

The Scriptures say that "to whom much is given, much is required." 

It seems like there would be less required, for those who have autonomous self-existence.

This is not an argument about what is true or false. Merely an observation to support what I said above. If we exist independently of God, our debt to Him is not the same as if we would be nothing without God.

I think you could also look on it as owing more because if he didn’t create us, he wasn’t responsible for us, so the fact he still came to our aid is a bigger sacrifice and gift.

[strappinglad]

Come on guys. What's with all this philosophical word salad? Every good, thinking, materialist knows for sure that we are all here by absolute chance working though acts of physics over billions of years. No Creator needed !!   🤢

[InCognitus]

8 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

As high-flown as these conversations can become, there is plenty at stake. For Catholics, God is "unlimited being" or existence itself. God is a oneness that lacks nothing. if there are multiple Gods, then Catholic belief is problematic because those Gods would limit each other in some way. None of those Gods would be truly infinite and so they would be "gods" (powerful creatures; maybe angels?), instead of "God" the all-powerful creator. Logically, if God is existence itself, then there can only be one God.

If there are many eternal beings (as I believe) and One of them possesses all power and intelligence and is greater than all others, then I'm not sure how the existence of the others puts limits on the One who is above all.  I can certainly see that the others might be limited in that they don't possess the same knowledge and power as the One, and their progression may be contingent on the One who is above all.  But I'm not sure why there would be limitations for the One who is above all, or why none of the others would be truly infinite, unless perhaps you are equating infinite with omnipresence.  Can you please elaborate?

8 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I've read many different things about LDS notions of God. Sometimes LDS writers/posters insist on three Gods who are separate beings, but always in accord. Sometimes LDS writers/posters emphasize multiple gods (Gods?) in various senses. Apparently, exactness on these points isn't ultra important for LDS folks. Maybe there is tolerance for varying points of view?

I see all of the views you describe above to be a reflection of the nuances we see in scripture.  We refer to the three separate beings that comprise the Godhead as God, even "one God" in unity of purpose and will.  But scripture also tells us that God is the "God of gods" (as in Deut 10:17), so all of the views you describe are correct and true, and are not a contradiction. I suppose it depends on what the LDS writer/poster is trying to communicate at the time.

8 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Anyway, I find it all very interesting. 

Same here.  Thank you for your response and participation here on the board.

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

It seems that by getting away from an ex nihilo creator, some problems (evil) are more easily solved while others emerge. 

That we exist independently of God or not, has moral ramifications. 

Can you please explain what moral ramifications you see in the idea that we existed with God in the beginning and He therefore didn't create us ex-nihilo?  I would think that the doctrine of a God who creates all things and all beings ex-nihilo and is therefore the primary contributor to the logical and even soteriological problems of evil to be a greater moral ramification (but I may be missing something).