mfbukowski Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 6 hours ago, 3DOP said: 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 Got it, thanks mi amigo! That makes sense.!
Calm Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 (edited) To me, the idea of multiple infinite Gods does not limit any of them. I assume I don’t understand the nuances because that is a new idea to me, but it sounds as if there is a belief there is only so much glory and power possible inside or outside of the universe and time and if it is split between Gods, then each will have less than what one God couple have. But as I said, I am thinking I am misunderstanding the idea. However, I am going to still state my contrasting idea in case it is relevant to the actual belief in some way. For me, the interaction between beings increases what is accomplished, what is potential, what exists as if the light from one sun can kindle fires in another sun, which then spreads its light throughout space or if already kindled, the waves of energy both send out as well as receiving from the other resonate together rather than cancel each other out and therefore grow in strength. There is not a limit on the infinite potential, so in one sense it is all infinite, but when his impact on creation is looked at individually (one being or object at a time) by me the impact of God grows as the number of individuals increases, but the impact is also dependent on the ability of each individual and increases as that ability increases. Think of how many ways God’s glory can be demonstrated by a human as opposed to a butterfly, even if the beauty and grace of the butterfly is perfect in its existence. So one butterfly is a perfect, maybe even infinite expression of God’s glory and a thousand butterflies provides us with a thousand such opportunities to experience that glory, but the glory of God reflected in one human being can be infinitely more varied and powerful than the thousand or millions of butterflies because of how man can interact with God. When the one whose God’s glory shines through is another God, I see that glory is intensified, multiplied infinite paths as well as strength rather than is just transmitted as if the other God is just a window, so to speak. Edited March 25, 2022 by Calm 3
Saint Bonaventure Posted March 25, 2022 Author Posted March 25, 2022 9 hours ago, 3DOP said: 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 Yes. I considered just saying that God is ipsum esse ala St. Thomas Aquinas, or something like "God is a cause that gives existence to all things, but receives existence from no thing." That's my one-sentence attempt at God as "Being."
Saint Bonaventure Posted March 25, 2022 Author Posted March 25, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: 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. Very interesting. One direction our conversation could take is "verbs." We could consider the differences between: God is light (1 John 1:5) and God has light God is love (1 John 4:7-8) and God has love God has a body that he gives up for us (Luke 22:19; John 6) and God is a body (LDS teaching?) One is constitutive and the other is possessive. To come full circle, this is why I'm interested in the discussion from several days ago concerning whether or not God is beholden to laws. Edited March 25, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure
Calm Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said: God has a body that he gives up for us (Luke 22:19; John 6) and God is a body (LDS teaching?) Would you say a human is a body or a human has a body?
pogi Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said: Very interesting. One direction our conversation could take is "verbs." We could consider the differences between: God is light (1 John 1:5) and God has light God is love (1 John 4:7-8) and God has love God has a body that he gives up for us (Luke 22:19; John 6) and God is a body (LDS teaching?) One is constitutive and the other is possessive. To come full circle, this is why I'm interested in the discussion from several days ago concerning whether or not God is beholden to laws. Psalms 84:11: "For the Lord God is a sun and a shield." Should we take it literally? I guess it would make sense that he is literally a sun, if he is also literally photons of "light". Of course these are all just words and fall short of describing the ineffable God. We are using terrestrial concept to describe a celestial being, and all words describing God are therefore figurative. God is the source of all of these things (as you say) he is not constitutive of them - just as God is the source of existence and not literally constitutive of all existence (pantheistic). So, to say that God "is" light, love, spirit, truth, life, the way, a sun, shield, or existence are simply figurative phrases to help us understand that God is the source of all good things. He is the only possible way ("I am the way") to fulfill the purpose of our creation - "men are that they might have joy". That is what he wants us to understand. He doesn't expect us to understand the celestial nature of his being as being literally constitutive of terrestrial concepts of photons etc. Again, these descriptions are not about creating an orthodoxy of true and salvific understanding, but these descriptions are about inspiring an orthopraxy of action that turns us to God as the source and giver of life, love, and happiness. God has a body that he gives up for us (Luke 22:19; John 6) and God is a body (LDS teaching?) "The Word became flesh... (John 1:14)" - Sounds constitutive to me. It all depends on the context of how you are speaking. Jesus became a resurrected being. As divine beings we are transformative. What constitutes our structure changes and evolves. In the most fundamental and reductive state we are intelligences, we become spirit beings, who become living souls (spirit and body). At resurrection all of these things become inseparably connected to constitute our divine beings. So, I think it wouldn't be incorrect to speak of these things in both a constitutive and possessive ways. I have a spirit, and I am a spirit, for example. Alas, they are just words and fall short. The important thing is not having a perfect understanding of all of these words, but of how they inspire us to behave and act. 2
Saint Bonaventure Posted March 25, 2022 Author Posted March 25, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: Would you say a human is a body or a human has a body? These are the aspects I'm thinking about in response to your question: Biblically, one place to start with this is to say that a human is from the dust of the ground and/or in the image of God. The and/or is because it's two different creation accounts in Genesis. Theologically, the Catholic Church teaches we have a human life at conception. The Catholic Church also teaches that the fundamental, unique humanness is in the ability "to know and love his creator" and in being the only creature "God has willed for its own sake." That's paragraph 356 in the Catechism: Quote Of all visible creatures only man is "able to know and love his creator". He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake", and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity: What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good. So that's where I'm starting from regarding issues about is/has a body. Edited March 25, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure
mfbukowski Posted March 25, 2022 Posted March 25, 2022 4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said: Very interesting. One direction our conversation could take is "verbs." We could consider the differences between: God is light (1 John 1:5) and God has light God is love (1 John 4:7-8) and God has love God has a body that he gives up for us (Luke 22:19; John 6) and God is a body (LDS teaching?) One is constitutive and the other is possessive. To come full circle, this is why I'm interested in the discussion from several days ago concerning whether or not God is beholden to laws. I'd be happy to go down that path! I did not see the discussion about God and law. But remember we do not only see the Bible as scripture, we also have canon from the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine & Covenants to give us more light on "light" But to quickly cut to the chase on the law question, there is a philosophical idea that "self determination" is actually the highest form of freedom. The concept is that voluntarily making a "law" for oneself which one sees as absolute can lead to improvement and more freedom. One example I will illustrate is one of my own major faults, and that is my tendency to be unkind and sarcastic. If I were able to follow the law that I make for myself that I will NEVER again be unkind or sarcastic, I would be limiting my freedom to do so. So it would be a sacrifice to take that law upon myself. On the other hand I would gain the love of others and be free or apologizing for being unkind, insults coming back, having to deal with those I have offended, etc. If we didn't follow traffic laws voluntarily and decided to drive (in the US) on the left side of the street instead of on the right, refused to stop at red lights that limit my freedom, etc, chaos would result and I would not even be able to drive down the street! So accepting law for a good cause brings us more liberty to live among others. God made gravity and various laws of nature which he COULD violate- He made the law in the first place! But he follows the laws he made to be able to be a better Father to his children Every parent know what that is like, you don't chase after sex, you come home at night, you work hard for your family to raise kids- you would do ANYTHING to help them, and that can be seen as a sacrifice or as a joy to serve them. More later if you're game, life intrudes and taxes need to be done! Gotta follow those laws for a better life! Later! 1
mfbukowski Posted March 26, 2022 Posted March 26, 2022 On 3/25/2022 at 5:27 AM, Saint Bonaventure said: Very interesting. One direction our conversation could take is "verbs." We could consider the differences between: God is light (1 John 1:5) and God has light God is love (1 John 4:7-8) and God has love God has a body that he gives up for us (Luke 22:19; John 6) and God is a body (LDS teaching?) One is constitutive and the other is possessive. To start this part of the discussion, though I am a fan of the philosophy of language because we THINK in words- at least when we try to communicate our ideas- a substantial problem in itself- I am not sure if this distinction is as much a question of the iterpretation of verbs as it is an examination of where the IDEAS or philosophy behind the interpretation of "is" vs "has" originated. I believe thinking this way is a result of the ingrained and taken-for-granted notion that there is a difference between what we ARE vs our attibutes, such as how tall we are, our hat size, the color of our skin, the shape of our face, if we walk with a limp, how we manage our hair- in short, the distinction is between our appearance vs our "true self" independent of how we look and appear. Aquinas of course sees this as Aristotle and for that matter Plato did- but neither of those philosophers were Christian. They both were concerned with the SUBSTANCE of things- ie: what a thing IS essentially- vs the APPEARANCE of the same object. One can take a hunk of a lead statue and melt it down and pour it into a mold and instead of a statue of a horse, we now have a statue of a goat. What has changed? Does the new hunk of lead have the APPEARANCE of the old hunk of lead? No it has changed completely- perhaps even in color since lead does gain a patina as it ages, and this new lead does not have that patina. So has the substance of the thing changed? One could argue it has not, since only the appearance has changed. If it is said that what it IS has not changed, but what it HAS as it appears- has not. Of course this discussion becomes important in Catholicism because this question becomes crucial in determining if it is logically possible for bread to change its substance without changing its appearances. I see no need to go into that- I frankly disagree with that and find the whole question to be somewhat of a semantic misunderstanding, in deciding how to name things and define what they ARE vs how they LOOK. AM I a male human or do I just look like one, appear as one, or "present" as one? AM I a male or do I just HAVE the attributes of maleness? And so there is now a new way of seeing what used to be a settled medieval question/discussion with the question of how to categorize trans sexuals etc.!!! I suppose it is an argument that cannot be resolved, and I limit myself to areas of discussion which DO have a possible rational answer, and not a simple "semantic problem". But I really would like to have further discussions with you- I am trying to see if I could become Catholic again. I think I could if I threw out most questions like this one, and simply re-categorize them as "semantic problems" I am at heart a mystic and I feel that I have much in common with other mystics from other faiths- perhaps more in common with other mystics than I have with other LDS members, often. On the other hand though, I see that as the incredible strength of the LDS position which enables us to create our own world, within limitations- the temple recommend- with which I have no problem whatsoever in following. In fact we are strongly encouraged to find our own revelations from God on these issues- and so I believe I will always remain LDS precisely because we do NOT have a "Magisterium" or "theology"' ; we interpret scriptures as lead by the Holy Ghost, and live our orthodox lifestyle- we have orthopraxis instead of orthodoxy. 1
Saint Bonaventure Posted March 26, 2022 Author Posted March 26, 2022 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: To start this part of the discussion, though I am a fan of the philosophy of language because we THINK in words- at least when we try to communicate our ideas- a substantial problem in itself- I am not sure if this distinction is as much a question of the iterpretation of verbs as it is an examination of where the IDEAS or philosophy behind the interpretation of "is" vs "has" originated. I believe thinking this way is a result of the ingrained and taken-for-granted notion that there is a difference between what we ARE vs our attibutes, such as how tall we are, our hat size, the color of our skin, the shape of our face, if we walk with a limp, how we manage our hair- in short, the distinction is between our appearance vs our "true self" independent of how we look and appear. Aquinas of course sees this as Aristotle and for that matter Plato did- but neither of those philosophers were Christian. They both were concerned with the SUBSTANCE of things- ie: what a thing IS essentially- vs the APPEARANCE of the same object. One can take a hunk of a lead statue and melt it down and pour it into a mold and instead of a statue of a horse, we now have a statue of a goat. What has changed? Does the new hunk of lead have the APPEARANCE of the old hunk of lead? No it has changed completely- perhaps even in color since lead does gain a patina as it ages, and this new lead does not have that patina. So has the substance of the thing changed? One could argue it has not, since only the appearance has changed. If it is said that what it IS has not changed, but what it HAS as it appears- has not. Of course this discussion becomes important in Catholicism because this question becomes crucial in determining if it is logically possible for bread to change its substance without changing its appearances. I see no need to go into that- I frankly disagree with that and find the whole question to be somewhat of a semantic misunderstanding, in deciding how to name things and define what they ARE vs how they LOOK. AM I a male human or do I just look like one, appear as one, or "present" as one? AM I a male or do I just HAVE the attributes of maleness? And so there is now a new way of seeing what used to be a settled medieval question/discussion with the question of how to categorize trans sexuals etc.!!! I suppose it is an argument that cannot be resolved, and I limit myself to areas of discussion which DO have a possible rational answer, and not a simple "semantic problem". But I really would like to have further discussions with you- I am trying to see if I could become Catholic again. I think I could if I threw out most questions like this one, and simply re-categorize them as "semantic problems" I am at heart a mystic and I feel that I have much in common with other mystics from other faiths- perhaps more in common with other mystics than I have with other LDS members, often. On the other hand though, I see that as the incredible strength of the LDS position which enables us to create our own world, within limitations- the temple recommend- with which I have no problem whatsoever in following. In fact we are strongly encouraged to find our own revelations from God on these issues- and so I believe I will always remain LDS precisely because we do NOT have a "Magisterium" or "theology"' ; we interpret scriptures as lead by the Holy Ghost, and live our orthodox lifestyle- we have orthopraxis instead of orthodoxy. I am not going to have this conversation with you. Instead, I am going to be polite and follow the board rules. There goes the punch bowl, again.
mfbukowski Posted March 26, 2022 Posted March 26, 2022 (edited) On 3/26/2022 at 2:32 PM, Saint Bonaventure said: I am not going to have this conversation with you. Instead, I am going to be polite and follow the board rules. There goes the punch bowl, again. Huh? Sorry, I don't understand. I don't understand how such a discussion would violate board rules. How can one differentiate between one's characteristics and who one is? It was YOUR question and I did my best to answer it. Well I hope we can have future talks- I honestly don't know what I did to cause this rift. If anyone can explain it to me, let me know. Edited March 29, 2022 by mfbukowski
InCognitus Posted March 26, 2022 Posted March 26, 2022 On 3/25/2022 at 5:27 AM, Saint Bonaventure said: To come full circle, this is why I'm interested in the discussion from several days ago concerning whether or not God is beholden to laws. Titus 1:2 "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began". If God "cannot lie", is that a limitation on what God is capable of doing, or is that simply a law that God chooses to obey, making integrity part of his reputation and character? 2
Stargazer Posted March 27, 2022 Posted March 27, 2022 On 3/21/2022 at 1:47 PM, Saint Bonaventure said: If I understand, Latter-day Saints believe that souls have always existed in some form, and even before the creation account in Genesis. You will find this in LDS scripture. In the Pearl of Great Price, specifically the Book of Abraham, which is a revelation to Abraham, we find the Lord telling Abraham: 18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. (Abraham 3:18) The usual Latter-day Saint terminology is that we existed eternally as intelligences, until God organized us into spirits. Who knows what this means? Nobody. But I trust that it is true, as far as language goes. On 3/21/2022 at 1:47 PM, Saint Bonaventure said: With this in mind, do Latter-day Saints contextualize "In the beginning" in some fashion? Is it considered "a beginning" or "just the beginning of the material universe" or something? "In the beginning" as found in the Bible (as well as the Pearl of Great Price) pertains only to this earth. This is explained to Moses here, where he is told that what the Lord tells him pertains only to the earth that Moses dwells on. Because there are many other earths, populated with more of God's children. 33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. 35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. (Moses 1:33-35) On 3/21/2022 at 1:47 PM, Saint Bonaventure said: I'm asking because Catholics often use a form of reasoning that puts science in its place. Specifically, "Since the universe had a beginning (the Big Bang), and by the universe I mean all time, space, matter, and energy (the stuff that science explores) the universe must have an immaterial cause that exists beyond time and space (God)." I don't know about other Latter-day Saints, but to me the universe does have an immaterial cause that exists beyond time and space. As modern humans with our modern understanding of cosmology and astrophysics, our universe originated in what we call the Big Bang, and that is when time began. At least for our universe, for our immediate purposes. Where is God in all this? He is outside of the Universe, and commanded it come into being, about 13.5 billion years ago. Physicist Stephen Hawking wrote this in his final book, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions": "I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science." "As we travel back in time towards the moment of the Big Bang, the universe gets smaller and smaller and smaller, until it finally comes to a point where the whole universe is a space so small that it is in effect a single infinitesimally small, infinitesimally dense black hole. And just as with modern-day black holes, floating around in space, the laws of nature dictate something quite extraordinary. They tell us that here too time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang because there was no time before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in." Here the otherwise brilliant and gifted Stephen Hawking gets the cart before the horse. God cannot have been in the Big Bang. For the simple reason that in order to have been in the Creation, He would have had to have created Himself. Which is an absurdity. In a sense, however, Hawking is correct. There was no time for a cause to exist in, so in order to have created the singularity that became this Universe, God had to have been standing outside of it, as it were. On 3/21/2022 at 1:47 PM, Saint Bonaventure said: But maybe the Latter-day Saint universe has no creation/beginning? Or doesn't have an immaterial cause? Clearly, I need another cup of coffee/cocoa. Other LDS may believe otherwise, but to me the Universe was called into existence by God, and though we do not know the origin of all the material in the Universe, nor indeed the origin of our own persons/spirits, we are eternal (referring back to Abr. 3:18) 2
3DOP Posted March 27, 2022 Posted March 27, 2022 (edited) On 3/25/2022 at 1:57 AM, InCognitus said: 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). If one is created by a maker out of nothing, one has less freedom to declare oneself independent of one's maker, than if one were made out of something, or certainly if one would exist independently of everything else. In Catholic spiritual writings, this theme comes up frequently. It is difficult for us to believe that without God, we would be nothing. For nothingness to disobey God in even slight matters is almost an unimaginable outrage. Happily, disobedience is of quite rare occurrence. All of creation, made out of nothing, obeys with the exception of men and some angels. To realize that not only the irrational animals, but even vegetables and minerals, always glorify God, and never defy Him is a humbling meditation. Of course I have not forgotten that above those creatures, angels and men have free will. But the lesser creatures with whom we share nothingness before, can instruct us. Imagine what it would be like if all of creation brought the same disorders into the universe as free men and angels sometimes bring through their reckless disregard for the will of God? An Act of Humility before Receiving Holy Communion: "During the season just past, I have often contemplated, O my Jesus, thy coming from thy high throne into the bosom of Mary, thy uniting thy divine Person to our weak mortal nature, and thy being born in the crib of a poor stable: and when I thought on these humiliations of my God, they taught me not only to love thee tenderly, but to know also my own nothingness, for I saw more clearly what an infinite distance there is between the creature and his Creator; and seeing these prodigies of thy immense love, I gladly confessed my own vileness. But now, dearest Saviour, I am led to consider something far more humiliating than the lowliness of my nature. That nothingness should be nothingness, is not a sin. No; it is my sins that appall me. Sin has so long tyrannized over me; its consequences are still upon me; it has given me such dangerous tendencies; and I am so weak in resisting its bidding. When my first parent sinned, he hid himself, lest he should meet thee; and thou biddest me come unto thee, not to sentence me to the punishment I deserve, but to give me, oh! such a mark of love--union with thyself! Can this be? Art thou not the infinitely holy God? I must needs yield, and come, for thou art my sovereign Master, and who is there that dares resist thy will? I come then, humbling myself, even to my very nothingness, before thee, and beseeching thee to pardon my coming, for I come because thou wilt have it so." ---The Liturgical Year, Dom Prosper Gueranger, Vol. 5, p. 94, 95, Saint Bonaventure Publications, Great Falls Mt., July 2000 As I said above InCognitus, I am not arguing about ex nihilo creation as true. I am only suggesting that it brings with it a more radical idea of the ugliness and disorder that disobedience to God would represent if it were true. I hope it is recognized that I am not arguing that the LDS view of creation precludes humility, or love for a forgiving God. But I doubt that a spirituality emphasizing our "nothingness" would be suitable for the Latter-day Saint. I understand from my philosophical discussions here that if God is transcendent, it would be impossible for us to know Him. It does no harm for a Catholic to understand why philosophy might say this. (Obviously, our approaches are very different. For you, the same species! No worries about whether God is interested in you.) For us, as you see. Catholics believe that whatever philosophy might say about it, the incomprehensible God has entered His Creation; He has entered it as one of us for His love of us. I do not even care if what I describe means that according to philosophical definition, the Catholic God that created all things out of nothing is not transcendent. Whatever. It is like monotheism. I do not care if Muslims have a God who is more rigorously monotheistic as well as more rigorously transcendent. Edited March 27, 2022 by 3DOP 2
InCognitus Posted March 27, 2022 Posted March 27, 2022 58 minutes ago, 3DOP said: As I said above InCognitus, I am not arguing about ex nihilo creation as true. I am only suggesting that it brings with it a more radical idea of the ugliness and disorder that disobedience to God would represent if it were true. I hope it is recognized that I am not arguing that the LDS view of creation precludes humility, or love for a forgiving God. But I doubt that a spirituality emphasizing our "nothingness" would be suitable for the Latter-day Saint. Thank you for the explanation. You said it all very nicely, and I appreciate getting a better understanding of your point of view. To the bold part above, our concept of man's "nothingness" would be from a direct comparison between man and the glory of God and all of his creations. Relatively speaking, from man's point of view, man is "nothing", and we would forever be "nothing" without God. This is not "nothing" in the sense of nonexistence, but in contrast to God himself. Nevertheless, we are all sons and daughters of God, and God takes a great interest in our growth and progression. Both of these concepts are expressed in this passage from our book of Moses, chapter 1: Quote 2 And he [Moses] saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence. 3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless? 4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease. 5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth. 6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all. 7 And now, behold, this one thing I show unto thee, Moses, my son, for thou art in the world, and now I show it unto thee. 8 And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered. 9 And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. 10 And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed. 11 But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him. (Moses 1:2–11) This passage shows an interesting comparison between God's view of man, and man's view of man relative to God. To God, Moses was his "son". But to Moses, after he beheld God's glory and the scope of God's creation relative to this earth, he considered man to be "nothing" in comparison. And he felt like "nothing" when he was left to his own strength. But from God's point of view, the further development of his children is everything to him. For later on in the same chapter, God declares: "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39) This is why I believe the scripture says, "God is love". This is why I believe the scripture says, "God is light". God loves us all so much, that he puts himself into his work for our salvation, and he gives us the light we need to progress and learn. And little by little, we may receive some of the same blessings that he enjoys. 1
webbles Posted March 27, 2022 Posted March 27, 2022 1 hour ago, 3DOP said: If one is created by a maker out of nothing, one has less freedom to declare oneself independent of one's maker, than if one were made out of something, or certainly if one would exist independently of everything else. In Catholic spiritual writings, this theme comes up frequently. It is difficult for us to believe that without God, we would be nothing. For nothingness to disobey God in even slight matters is almost an unimaginable outrage. Happily, disobedience is of quite rare occurrence. All of creation, made out of nothing, obeys with the exception of men and some angels. To realize that not only the irrational animals, but even vegetables and minerals, always glorify God, and never defy Him is a humbling meditation. Of course I have not forgotten that above those creatures, angels and men have free will. But the lesser creatures with whom we share nothingness before, can instruct us. Imagine what it would be like if all of creation brought the same disorders into the universe as free men and angels sometimes bring through their reckless disregard for the will of God? The bolded is very interesting to me because if we were created by God out of nothing, then we technically can not disobey Him. At the time of creation, He knew (because of His omniscience) exactly what we would do. He knew what "disobedience" we would perform so He got to decide what disobedience would occur by choosing which humans and angels are created. It is similar to computer programs. When I create a computer program, I know what it will do at the time of creation. So if it "disobeys" me, it is only because I programmed it to disobey me. Even when we disobey God, we are actually obeying Him. Because He planned it that way. 1
Saint Bonaventure Posted March 28, 2022 Author Posted March 28, 2022 On 3/26/2022 at 6:04 PM, mfbukowski said: Huh? Sorry, I don't understand. I don't understand how such a discussion would violate board rules. How can one differentiate between one's characteristics and who one is? It was YOUR question and I did my best to answer it. Well I hope we can have future talks- I honestly don't know what I did to cause this rift. If anyone can explain it to me, let me know. @Calm is usually pretty good and straightening me out if I am wrong. I don't think you've violated board rules; Gish Gallops seem to be tolerated. -1
Saint Bonaventure Posted March 28, 2022 Author Posted March 28, 2022 On 3/26/2022 at 6:49 PM, InCognitus said: Titus 1:2 "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began". If God "cannot lie", is that a limitation on what God is capable of doing, or is that simply a law that God chooses to obey, making integrity part of his reputation and character? Great question. As a starting point, I assert that God has the power to do anything that is logically possible. Put another way, it must not be logically possible for God to lie. As far as reputation and character, I assert that God is infinitely good, that all his works are good, and that objective moral law comes from a perfect lawgiver (God).
Saint Bonaventure Posted March 28, 2022 Author Posted March 28, 2022 On 3/26/2022 at 9:23 PM, Stargazer said: Quote You will find this in LDS scripture. In the Pearl of Great Price, specifically the Book of Abraham, which is a revelation to Abraham, we find the Lord telling Abraham: 18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal. (Abraham 3:18) The usual Latter-day Saint terminology is that we existed eternally as intelligences, until God organized us into spirits. Who knows what this means? Nobody. But I trust that it is true, as far as language goes. If this notion of eternally existing intelligences is embedded in the notion of the creation accounts in Genesis and John 1 are only accounts of the creation of this earth, etc., and that there is an infinite, ultimate existence that is God's that goes beyond these intelligences, then there could still be important compatibilities in the LDS and Catholic creation accounts. If not, that is, if these intelligences are as eternal as God is, then I think we've identified a fundamental incompatibility in views, so to speak. Quote "In the beginning" as found in the Bible (as well as the Pearl of Great Price) pertains only to this earth. This is explained to Moses here, where he is told that what the Lord tells him pertains only to the earth that Moses dwells on. Because there are many other earths, populated with more of God's children. 33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. 35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. (Moses 1:33-35) Okay, so are the infinite intelligences only infinite within the "account of this earth?" This is an important aspect, to me. Quote I don't know about other Latter-day Saints, but to me the universe does have an immaterial cause that exists beyond time and space. As modern humans with our modern understanding of cosmology and astrophysics, our universe originated in what we call the Big Bang, and that is when time began. At least for our universe, for our immediate purposes. Where is God in all this? He is outside of the Universe, and commanded it come into being, about 13.5 billion years ago. Physicist Stephen Hawking wrote this in his final book, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions": "I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science." "As we travel back in time towards the moment of the Big Bang, the universe gets smaller and smaller and smaller, until it finally comes to a point where the whole universe is a space so small that it is in effect a single infinitesimally small, infinitesimally dense black hole. And just as with modern-day black holes, floating around in space, the laws of nature dictate something quite extraordinary. They tell us that here too time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the Big Bang because there was no time before the Big Bang. We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in." Here the otherwise brilliant and gifted Stephen Hawking gets the cart before the horse. God cannot have been in the Big Bang. For the simple reason that in order to have been in the Creation, He would have had to have created Himself. Which is an absurdity. In a sense, however, Hawking is correct. There was no time for a cause to exist in, so in order to have created the singularity that became this Universe, God had to have been standing outside of it, as it were. Other LDS may believe otherwise, but to me the Universe was called into existence by God, and though we do not know the origin of all the material in the Universe, nor indeed the origin of our own persons/spirits, we are eternal (referring back to Abr. 3:18) Very interesting. From my perspective, God as a being is beyond the material universe for deep theological reasons, some of which are foundational to the Incarnation, wherein Jesus is both fully God and fully man.
Nofear Posted March 28, 2022 Posted March 28, 2022 18 hours ago, webbles said: The bolded is very interesting to me because if we were created by God out of nothing, then we technically can not disobey Him. At the time of creation, He knew (because of His omniscience) exactly what we would do. He knew what "disobedience" we would perform so He got to decide what disobedience would occur by choosing which humans and angels are created. It is similar to computer programs. When I create a computer program, I know what it will do at the time of creation. So if it "disobeys" me, it is only because I programmed it to disobey me. Even when we disobey God, we are actually obeying Him. Because He planned it that way. Very much this. Philosopher Galen Strawsen formalizes this a bit more in his Basic Argument. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are. To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are—at least in certain crucial mental respects. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do. Plenty of philosophers try to get out of this (they are called compatibilists). In my opinion they fail. Creatio ex nihilo makes the failure even more robust. LDS theology, however, does get out of this by the denial of creatio ex nihilo and hence rejects point 3 of the Basic Argument. Another way of sound biting the argument, if the Fall was Adam and Eve's fault, but since God made them out of nothing, why not have made them with the personality and inclination so that they would not have succumbed to temptation? And since God made them in such a way that they chose the bad, then is not the Fall then God's fault? Adam and Eve didn't choose to be the way they are. Of if they "chose" to be the way they are, they made that choice because of another aspect of them that they did not choose. So, God could have made them in such a way that would not have become the characters who chose to partake of the forbidden fruit. Extend the argument ad infinitum if one wants, but, in the end it still all comes down to ultimately being God's fault. 4
pogi Posted March 28, 2022 Posted March 28, 2022 On 3/26/2022 at 7:23 PM, Stargazer said: I don't know about other Latter-day Saints, but to me the universe does have an immaterial cause that exists beyond time and space. Just to clarify, are you suggesting the doctrine of creation ex-nihlo here? An immaterial cause is contrary to our scripture: D&C 93:3 Quote The elements are eternal Joseph Smith expounded on that idea: Quote the elements are co-existent with God, and they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. The Contributor, vol. 4, p. 257 (Joseph Smith, April 1844 sermon). On 3/26/2022 at 7:23 PM, Stargazer said: "I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science." This is according to mankind's perspective and measure, but Hawking denies that the "singularity" was nothing. Quote It was always reaching closer to nothing but didn't become nothing," according to the article. Essentially, "there was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's point of perspective." The Big Bang theory holds that the universe in retrospective can shrink to the size of an extremely small “subatomic ball” known as the singularity. “There was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind’s perspective,” Hawking said. https://www.livescience.com/61914-stephen-hawking-neil-degrasse-tyson-beginning-of-time.htmlnothingno Quote all the matter in the cosmos -- all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle [source: Wall]. The "singularity" was not nothing. On the contrary is was everything, and it was reorganized into what we experience today. I also tend to believe that God existed outside the "singularity" but was coeternal with it. 2
MrShorty Posted March 28, 2022 Posted March 28, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: An immaterial cause is contrary to our scripture: Just because it is contrary to scripture, does that make it not True? I mean, the hardest part of the Copernican revolution was that Moses in scripture described a geocentric universe. A heliocentric universe would contradict scripture. Of course, we later came to believe that Moses cosmology borrowed much from the common geocentric cosmologies of the day rather than revealing the one True cosmology. This is kind of what I was thinking of when I mentioned that Joseph Smith may have been influenced by the cosmologies present in the 19th century. In the 19th century, people believed in a steady state universe that exists eternally into the past and future. Chemistry was just beginning to get to the idea of atoms and elements and the law of conservation of matter (that matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Nuclear physics (the understanding that there are smaller pieces than atoms, and if you can manipulate those pieces, you can change one element into another) was still well in the future. Of course, any understanding of the big bang and how matter and element as we know them came to be, were way in the future for Joseph Smith. I guess it comes down to exactly what do we think Joseph meant when he said that element is eternal and co-eternal with God? Do we expect Joseph's meaning to "concord" with our current cosmology (where something pre-existed the Big Bang, but we have no idea what matter and element and such even mean before our universe came into being)? At some point, if I cannot observe or understand or anything else what "eternal matter" looks like, then does our ex-materia theology really look different from others' ex-nihilo theology? Sure there's a theological difference, but, if I cannot make sense to myself what "eternal matter" means, then I'm not sure there is a practical difference between the two theologies. Just some ramblings. Edited March 28, 2022 by MrShorty
Nofear Posted March 28, 2022 Posted March 28, 2022 On 3/26/2022 at 8:23 PM, Stargazer said: I don't know about other Latter-day Saints, but to me the universe does have an immaterial cause that exists beyond time and space. As modern humans with our modern understanding of cosmology and astrophysics, our universe originated in what we call the Big Bang, and that is when time began. At least for our universe, for our immediate purposes. As posted earlier in this thread, the current understanding of the Big Bang Theory requires initial conditions that are not a singularity. At some finite point in the past, about 13.8 billion years, our observable universe was compressed to a very hot, very dense (but finite in both temperature and density) region of space order a meter or two in diameter. How it got there is a topic of speculation for which inflationary models have the most traction. My personal interpretation of LDS theology is rather strictly materialistic and I do not invoke immaterial causes. But, it does invoke things that defy deterministic physics -- namely intelligent "matter". I put "matter" in quotes because we don't know enough about intelligences to know if they correspond to anything like what physical or even spirit matter is like. Where I tend to get into trouble with other latter-day saints' own theological interpretations is that even if I extend our fundamental existence into the infinite past, our and God's existence as spirit and physical bodies only has a finite existence. They don't like that. The universe wasn't anywhere close to suitable for material bodies until a finite time ago. 2
Amulek Posted March 28, 2022 Posted March 28, 2022 2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said: I don't think [mfbukowski] violated board rules; Gish Gallops seem to be tolerated. I had to look up the term Gish Gallop. According to Wikipedia, "During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate." That's not how I would characterize Mark's response to your comment. At all. Look, if you don't want to engage with him on the subject that's your business, but I strongly disagree with your opinion / back-handed insult that he was spouting off a bunch of 'half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies.' 2
Recommended Posts