MaryJehanne
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MaryJehanne
-
-
On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:
The simplest way to explain it is that I believe justice is an innate characteristic that can be perceived to some extent by all intelligent forms of existence. In an attempt to make this easier for us to come to common ground, I will put it in another way. If I were to accept the possibility of creation from nothing, and that there was once a moment when nothing existed except for God, then I would also agree with you that justice only exists as part of God, and that God is it's source. Even in normal 'every day' conversation I would completely agree with the concept that God is the source of justice. However, in a nitty gritty conversation like this, I have pinpointed that He is not the creator/originator of justice, only because I believe that there is nothing in existence that has ever been created ex-nihilo. Philosophically, to me justice exists independent of God, only because it is co-eternal with all things in existence.
I understand where you're coming from!
So the reason you don't believe justice finds its origin in God is because you've already determined it's impossible for God to be The Origin? As with the LDS scripture you quoted, maintaining the foundational bias is important to keep this ideology. I see how that works, it just makes it harder to understand when you're assuming something I'm not. On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:Justice is not necessary, it simply is, and can not be avoided.
Pardon my saying so, but it would seem if something is and cannot be avoided, that's the definition of necessary. In the LDS theology, then, that must be where my God is, not in Heavenly Father. Does that make my perspective easier to understand? It seems we've being discussing two different gods, which is the source of a lot of the disconnect, as I think we already mentioned!
I would say that justice manifests itself in human reason, since God oriented us for that, but does not exist because human reason exists. It's like we're TV monitors for the actual "machine" that is justice (probably a poor analogy, but it'll have to do!
).
On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:That was literally just the definition from the dictionary, when I looked up the word 'principle'.
However, I agreed with the definition. It's not that is has to be a fundamental truth, it's that it simply is, and cannot be changed.
I'm not trying to split hairs on definitions.
I wasn't challenging whether a principle is a fundamental truth; I'm asking a question about existence. I'm asking what makes a principle a principle? Why is a fundamental truth a fundamental truth? Nothing that is not existence exists "just because," otherwise there's no reason for something instead of nothing, which means there should be nothing.
On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:To me there is no such thing as the supernatural. At least not in the context I think you are talking about. To me, everything God does is within the confines of natural law (i.e. creation ex-materia). However, the natural laws we experience in mortality are not necessarily the same as eternal natural law. For example, Christ physically ascended to heaven, you and I can't do that, or even levitate or fly without some sort of mechanical device. To me Christs ability to travel like that is not supernatural, but is instead the result of His deeper knowledge and understanding of the nature and laws of physics to an extent that is not within the capability of mortal man.
Again, pardon my saying so, but there's only one sort of supernatural... it means something above (super) what is natural!
I think that's another assumption... I don't think that knowledge and understanding can make what's impossible possible. There's is nothing on this planet that can do something of its own volition beyond its nature. Every animal that flies needs apparatuses to do so, and they either have them and can fly, or they don't and they can't. If something is occurring that's beyond what is natural, it must be supernatural (or preternatural, in the case beings such as demons).
On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:My definition is, 'not getting exactly what one deserves'.
Mine would be "a violation of another's strict right against his reasonable will," i.e. the right to live, the right to Liberty, and on a higher level, the right to pursue love of God. Injustice, in my current understanding, must always be a detriment blocking what is good.
On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:I disagree. The Bible indicates that God is 'no respecter of persons', which is a huge foundation of my initial premise in the OP. He will ultimately treat all of his children equally, it is our perception of what that equality means that may sometimes be limited in scope. I believe that the workers in the parable were treated justly because they each made an agreement and they each received exactly what was agreed upon. Equal doesn't mean everyone has the same experience, it means that theoretically, any two people who have the exact same experience, are treated exactly the same. In terms of equality, in the parable, each person who worked started working at the same time as another person, received the same reward (this is separate in importance from the fact that groups that started at different times were also paid the same).
In my perspective, He won't love a person more, but He does have individual missions for people that won't be equal. (And of course, He'll grant some people more grace than others if they ask for it versus not, but I'm assuming you're including that in experience?) If I was under the exact same conditions as St. Faustina (which obviously wouldn't happen, because that wasn't His will!), would He have made me His Secretary of Divine Mercy? Probably not. She has a certain relationship with Him that I will never have, simply because she is she as He made her. And I have a relationship with Him no one else will have, because I am me as He made me.
On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:Example 1. Example 2.
Ah. I'd see. I'd answer with a variation on what I've probably been saying, but mercy is not mercy if it is required. The second instance is MORE merciful than the first. If justice were required for mercy to be enacted, there would be no true mercy.
On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:I agree, except that God has already set forth His plan and methods. Any limitations are only those He has placed upon and/or agreed upon Himself. Since He is unchanging, the stipulations will never change. 'God is a God of justice', this will never change, although He will continuously extend as much mercy as He possibly can, He will not change the stipulations; if He were to change them, then He has lied, and a God who lies is an imperfect God, which He is not, therefore He will not change and His mercy will only be extended insomuch as He maintains his identity as a God of justice.
I'm confused by this... didn't you say He had to be just and merciful as part of His nature? How are these limitations He's imposed on Himself? If He could never change, how was he able to become a God of mercy and justice in the first place? That seems to be a change
I do think there's another disconnect in our approach to this to do with our different definitions of God. You're saying God is a God of Mercy, that mercy is a part of Him, but I am holding that my God is Mercy. His Mercy is limitless because it is Him. To limit His Mercy would be to limit Him, which would make him at best God with a lowercase "g", which is why I'm having trouble with much of what you're saying. It's probably, again, just that I'm thinking of a different sort of Being, one that's not human in His Divine Nature.
On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:I agree completely (and so does the Book of Mormon by the way), hence the ice-cream example. Christ brings us back to God on His own infinite merit, only after we make our covenant with Him, and uphold our end of the covenant. God accepts Christ and judges us based on Christ, not based on us. To me, without Christ, there would be nothing that could bring us back, because justice could not be fulfilled/overpowered by mercy through any other means.
Okay.
Christ is able to be merciful when the Father is not? Or are you just saying Christ's mercy is still coming from His (then) future Atonement?
-
4 hours ago, person0 said:
Justice did not come from anywhere. It exists because in a reality where intelligent beings exist, it is not possible for it to not exist. Hence it is a self-existing eternal principle, and there are many others. Things that exist do not necessitate an origin. The question of 'where did Justice come from?' is equivalent to the question of 'where did God come from?' I think we would both agree that God didn't come from anywhere, He has always existed. If there was ever a moment when nothing existed, then nothing would always be. Likewise, because there are things that do exist, it is not possible that there ever was or ever will be a moment when nothing exists.
How come it's not possible for justice not to exist when intelligent beings do?
I would agree that "where did Justice come from" equals "where did God come from," because I believe Justice finds it source in God. From what you've said, though, you don't believe that, so why is Justice necessary if it's not found only through God?
If there was a moment when nothing existed, yet God existed, then something could certainly come into being! Things that do exist, but are not existence in itself, must be held in existence by whatever is the source of existence. I don’t believe in just a mighty being as eternal. I'd still say that's ridiculous: who made him? I profess that God is only eternal because He is existence. He is simply He Who Is. If he were not, He would not be God.
4 hours ago, person0 said:We don't know exactly what it is, but we know thought is enabled by intelligence, and intelligence is an actual thing that exists. LDS scriptures state, " Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." Magnetic force is not matter, it is something that is enabled when mater is organized in a particular way. Similarly thought does not have to be matter, even if it is enabled by something that is matter, or otherwise a physical substance. A principle is a fundamental truth.
A magnetic field, though, isn't an abstract concept. It consists of charges, of particles. That's matter! I'm asking about the supernatural.
What made a principle a fundamental truth? Why does it have to be a fundamental truth?
4 hours ago, person0 said:I do not think that it is actually possible to conceive of a state of complete nothingness. Anyone who tries will always eventually end up imagining complete white or complete black, but that is still something. I agree that it is possible to suggest it out loud, or in text, but I do not believe it can actually be logically accomplished in the mind. Regardless, it is somewhat irrelevant because, where you believe I am making an assumption, technically, I am not. The reason I can say that I am not making an assumption is because LDS scripture actually specifically says, that there are things (such as intelligence) that cannot be created. Similarly, our scriptures tell us that, "The elements are eternal". So to our paradigm, God has already told us that He cannot create matter from nothing, which just so happens to also match up to the fact that we can't logically imagine how it could be accomplished.
If you're imagining something, though, and giving it a picture, you're operating within the natural. If we're considering nothingness, this begins to touch on the supernatural, which we cannot picture, since picturing something is inherently corporeal. Using our preternatural faculties, without using the senses, we can conceive of nothingness.
Ah! I see. I'd still say that's an assumption, but I understand that's your scripture, so to believe it you have to maintain that assumption!
4 hours ago, person0 said:I agree with this entirely. In fact, an oft quoted passage in the Book of Mormon indicates that there are, "both things to act and things to be acted upon." From what I understand of your position, it appears that you would trace everything in existence back to what I might suggest is a 'spiritual equivalent of the Big Bang', where there was technically once a moment when nothing existed except for God, and then He began to create. Clearly, however, I do not believe that such a moment ever existed.
Yes, I do believe there was a moment when nothing existed but God, although spiritual Big Bang wouldn't be quite the term for my belief! God is continually creating to keep things in existence, and each time a child is conceived, a new soul is made.
4 hours ago, person0 said:The proof was in the example of the children, the parent, and the ice-cream. The statements were only preparatory to set the stage for what the example would show.
Matthew 20:9-16 is completely just; both parties completely fulfilled their end of the deal. Each participant received exactly what they deserved per terms of the agreement.
Matthew 18:23-27 is incomplete. The mercy in the parable was conditional. The servant did not comply with the responsibility to forgive as he was forgiven, ultimately he was 'delivered to the tormentors' until he paid all. It emphasizes one aspect of our responsibility as Christians, forgiveness. When we accept Christ we also agree to the 'terms and conditions' of His salvation. It is a free gift in the sense that we could not ever earn it for ourselves, but it is not forced on us to the extent that we can never reject it or lose it through wickedness. It is also important to note that during mortality mankind is not bound by justice the way that God is bound by justice. In my previous example with the ice cream, most parents would probably just give the child the ice cream in kindness and mercy. The parent can do as they see fit with their stuff with no repercussions, because the parent is not expected to be perfect. It still is technically unjust to the child who fulfilled his obligation in exchange for the reward. Likewise, if the parable from Matthew 18 indicated that a different servant had actually paid his debt to the master, then the master's action to forgive the servant's debt would be unjust to the servant who paid because he did not fulfill the law in regards to nonpaying servants, and he did not treat all servants equally. The point of the parable is that with God as the master, every single person ever born is in the position of the massively indebted servant. While we are expected to be merciful, God is required to enact justice.
Yes, that makes sense you'd use them as preparatory statements, I just couldn't grasp them and use them as support for your idea, because the last statement doesn't follow the first two!
Justice and Mercy are intertwined in God. In examples of God's Mercy, you will find justice, and vice versa. His mercy is just because mercy belongs to Him. In the first Matthew quotation, He did what he wished with what he pleases. For Mercy, it is His to give out.
It's incomplete as far as reading the whole parable; it's not incomplete as far as the action of mercy is concerned. It is just as within His right to withdraw His gifts as it is to grant them! This doesn't nullify His ability to give mercy, simply because He has the power to take it away. I never said Mercy would be forced! I've emphasized that it is within cooperation with our free will.
If the child is sorry, that is not unjust. If the child is not sorry, however, it is, and will probably damage the child later on. If we are sorry for our sins (which per the law, should ban us from heaven), God forgives us of His own power. If we are not, in justice we go to Hell.
I think we're operating under different definitions of injustice! "Injustice (Lat. in, privative, and jus, right), in the large sense, is a contradiction in any way of the virtue of justice. Here, however, it is taken to mean the violation of another's strict right against his reasonable will, and the value of the word right is determined to be the moral power of having or doing or exacting something in support or furtherance of one's own advantage."
No, that parable is centered on God's mercy. He is not required to treat everyone the same, as Matthew 20:9-16 demonstrated. He did not treat the workers equally. Some did more work, and more difficult work, and some did less, easier work, and receive more proportionally than the first ones did. If the King were required to forgive all his servants their debts, there was no need for the servant to be so worried. He'd know the King would have to forgive him.
4 hours ago, person0 said:I disagree with Thomas Aquinas. His example is true, but his explanation of the example is incorrect. 'A man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred' first completely fulfills justice, and then after fulfilling it, gives more than justice requires and thus acts mercifully. The debt was 100; by paying the first 100 the debt was paid and justice fulfilled, the second 100 was mercy. The case is not the same with someone who pardons an offense against him; in the first example the person who owed the debt actually paid it, in the second example, the person who committed the offence did not pay the debt, but was only given mercy. It is accurate that mercy is a gift, but justice was not fulfilled in the second example. Once again, in mortality we are expected to forgive all and await the justice of the Lord. However, God cannot forgive the man who sins and does not accept the payment of the punishment as offered by Christ, because God is bound by true justice.
The second example? Do you mean the Bible verses I quoted? Those weren't part of St. Thomas's statement... I picked out those. (Is that what you meant?)
Whoever has dominion over Mercy, it is within His right to do whatever He pleases with it. This is just, if we're defining justice as fairness, momentarily. It is just for Him to distribute His Mercy as He sees fit; it is unjust to propose that He must limit what is His right. He can set up stipulations and make demands, and that is within His right. He owns it. He can also throw away His stipulations and demands, giving out His "property" to whomever He wishes. That's His right.
4 hours ago, person0 said:The first sentence I agree with completely. If all Christ did was pay our debt for sin, then justice would be fulfilled, and that's all. However, Christ did what Thomas Aquinas had as his first example, He paid the price to fulfill justice and then went beyond that to extend mercy and enable us to become 'joint heirs' with Him. The last question, to me, is based in a false premise, and it is the foundation premise of 'The Gospel of Inclusion' which teaches that God will ultimately forgive everyone for everything. However, to answer your question anyway, our mortal application of mercy is flawed. Where it appears that we are being merciful, it's quite possibly the contrary. For example, if punishment X results in person A correcting a self destructive behavior, whereas the lack of punishment X would result in person A continuing the behavior, which is the more merciful thing? I would argue, that in this example, the punishment is the more merciful thing. However, because we do not posses the omniscient mind of God, we can't see all and in our mortal state will generally misapply justice and mercy. This is another reason why we need Christ, His atonement not only makes up for our sins, it also changes our character, and alleviates our imperfections that are not necessarily sinful until we are ultimately made perfect as He is perfect.
Thank you for this very thought provoking conversation, it just keeps getting better and better!
No, I'd reject that premise! I said He was perfectly capable of forgiving whomever He pleases. Turning on an uncontrollable spout of forgiveness is in direct opposition to this statement. That means He can't distribute forgiveness as wishes, but is required to give it to everyone. That's not the case. He will not grant mercy to everyone. Only those He chooses. He extends His Mercy to everyone, but He does not choose to give His mercy to those who reject it.
In justice, even with Christ's sacrifice, we still should pay the price. God taking it on himself was Mercy, God accepting the Passion was Mercy. Just justice would want to see the punishment inflicted on the perpetrators, not anyone else.
-
-
On April 4, 2018 at 1:20 AM, anatess2 said:
I posit there is only one Love. Anything else is a secular concept irrelevant to gospel principles. I posit that when God gave us the greatest commandments He meant it just that - Love God. Love our neighbor as ourselves. There's no degree of difference between spouse and children and stranger across the street. The objective is to love all of them in equal measure. What differentiates our spouse from our children and from the stranger across the street is the expressions of love. The love we have for our spouse is rooted in our marital covenant that comes with specific obligations. The love we have for our children is rooted in their sealing to the marital covenant and comes with specific obligations. This requires specific commandments distinct from the stranger across the street. But the love is the same.
Yes, I know you're assuming there's only one love, but I'm trying to discuss why! What I mean is that there is the Supernatural Love and the natural loves, which are good, but lesser. In the Bible, these different loves are referenced, such as in Matthew when Jesus tells Peter He loves him, but uses Agape. Christ loves Peter with His entire heart. Peter replies with Philia. We're friends. Christ continues to ask him if he loves Him, intimating that Philia is not enough, it is not equal. This nuance is missed in the English translation because of the one word for love.
In the Gospels, Christ also demands a higher degree, more love. In Matthew 10:37: "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me." And in Luke 14:26: "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brother and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."
On April 4, 2018 at 4:38 AM, ProDeo said:Okay
old - Love is serving the other.
new - Love is serving the other from the goodness of the heart.
But wait, what to think of ?
John 14:21 - Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me.
John 15:14 - You are my friends if you do what I command you.
No sentiments or emotions involved.
But I get what you are trying to say and In my country the Catholics have this lovely saying - It's more blissful to give than to receive.
Oops! I'm sorry, I should have defined what I meant by Love, not a sentiment or an emotion, but an act of the will! I entirely agree with these verses! (What denomination are you? Where I'm from, most of the denominations are Sola Fide.) I only meant that, though service follows love, service does not necessary equal love. Someone can perform actions without really loving. That's all I meant.
Sorry for making that more complicated than it needed to be!
-
On April 2, 2018 at 11:14 AM, person0 said:
Justice is not a physical thing. It is a logical concept. It exists because it exists, and it is not possible for it to not exist. Justice has no will of it's own, but can be recognized by all intelligent forms of existence. It is a principle. God was not made from it, because God was not made. God did not create justice because justice was not created. They both have existed for all eternity. However, God is an actual physical being that exists in physical form with mental capacities. Justice does not exist in physical form and is not a sentient entity, it exists by default because beings with the ability to think exist. I suppose you could say that technically, if there was no such thing as intelligent existence, there would also be no such thing as justice. However, there is and always has been and always will be intelligent forms of existence, and therefore justice, as an eternal principle will always exist to the understanding of intelligent beings. God is the perfect purveyor and embodiment of justice. His will always fulfills justice perfectly. The two are independent, co-existent, and co-eternal, and yet, because of His perfections it can be said that God is Justice. It's okay if this is very foreign to you, however, hopefully I have done a better job at explaining it this time.
Like justice, 'love' is a principle that exists in the mind of intelligent beings that have the capacity to love. Since to the LDS paradigm intelligence is not something that is created, love, in its perfect form, as a concept or principle is also uncreated. Hence it can be said that God is Love. There has never been a moment of existence when love did not exist as part of God, and/or within the mind of God.
Not everything in the LDS purview is matter. Thought, and the ability to think is not matter. Even if we suppose that the ability to think is enabled by matter, thought itself is not a physical thing. Therefore things that we consider to be eternal principles do not have to have a physical existence.
Eternal principles have not defined anything. Eternal principles exist as a default simply because of the fact that intelligent life exists. If God were to break the law of justice, there is no higher authority that would punish Him, instead, in His perfection He would punish Himself (for lack of a better terminology). Of course this is an absurd proposition, God would never reject, disregard, or attempt to circumvent justice, because it is a part of Him. It is an innate characteristic of His being.
In regard to omnipotence. All power is limited by the 'all'. If there is something for which the power to do does not exist, it can not be considered part of the 'all'. While it possibly can be conceived in the mind, it cannot be accomplished in reality. For example, the age old question, 'can God create an immovable rock?' The answer is no, He can not do that, anything He creates, He would also be able to move. So, although you can imagine the question, the reality is not possible. God does not lack power in any circumstance. The power to do certain things does not exist, this is not the same as lacking power because, how can you lack something that doesn't exist? To me, the idea of creation ex-nihilo is just that, an idea; it is not something that exists in reality, therefore, God's inability to do it is not actually a lack of power, because it cannot be done by anyone or anything, ever.We will probably just have to agree to disagree on this. I don't expect you to decide all of a sudden that you no longer believe in creation ex-nihilo. However, if you want, I can link you to traditional Christian sources that agree with my definition of omnipotence (although they admittedly disagree with my belief that ex-nihilo creation is impossible).
I get where you're coming from. I will attempt to phrase it in another way, and then possibly we may have to agree to disagree on this as well. The opposite of justice is injustice. The opposite of mercy is mercilessness. However, in situations where justice is not fulfilled mercy = injustice.
Suppose you have two children and tell them that if they finish their homework by exactly 8pm they can get ice cream. If one child finishes at 7:55 pm and the other finishes at 8:05 pm then by your rules, one child deserves ice cream, and one does not. In mercy you may decide to give the other child ice cream anyway, but this is technically an unjust action. The child that finished their homework on time would have just reason to complain, and would also no longer have reason to follow your 8 pm rule, because they have seen that you will just ignore the rule anyway. Your mercy as the loving parent you are, with the ability to circumvent your own rule, results in injustice.
In the gospel, Jesus does the homework in advance, and then He get's the ice cream from Father. He then makes a deal with us where He offers to share the ice cream with us. We are unable to get the ice cream directly from Father, we have to get it from Jesus Christ, because He earned it and we didn't. In this example, the rule was who would receive the ice cream, but there was never a rule about sharing it.
By following this method, justice was fulfilled. The compliant child (Jesus) received the ice cream, and the non-compliant child did not. However, when Jesus offers to share the ice cream, mercy is extended to the non-compliant child and then both principles are accomplished.
Sorry it took so long, it was Easter weekend!
Thank you! I do think I understand it better. It's not very foreign, more like a deconstruction and reorganization of similar aspects of reality. I'm just trying to figure out where you're placing the building blocks, versus where I am!
Where did Justice come from, then? Why does it exist instead of nothing?
Okay! I see. If it's not made of matter, what is it? What is a principle? What is the intellect?
Yes, but what made those principles the default? My perspective would hold that if they were not made the default, yet have no will of their own, there is not reason for them to exist at all.
While I agree the rock question is illogical, I'd add that the assumption being made is that we know of all that is possible. Simply because I can't conceive of something being possible, doesn't mean it is impossible to God. I'd also propose that the belief in ex-nihilo being impossible is an assumption as well! It is entirely possible to conceive of matter not existing. There is no reason why a tree must exist. There is nothing in its nature that is necessary to reality. There could just be nothing. And if nothing moved it into being, there should be nothing. Even nature acts on this rule within itself: nothing does anything unless it is acted upon by something else. Atheists have to fudge around this question, because they can only trace matter back so far (around the Big Bang) before it's necessary for it to have a first cause.
I would agree with their definition of omnipotence as well! My point is only that in the definition that has been proposed, additional restrictions have been added to the realm of the possible that do not belong there, since some of the things that have been declared as impossible are in fact entirely possible!
I'm sorry, I'm having some difficulty following your proof!
The problem seems to be a missing step or two before statement 3. How did you get from statement 1 and statement 2 to statement 3? Thank you for explaining for me!
It is within your ability to do whatever you choose with what belongs to you! (As long as it does not violate the rights of that person!) Forgiveness and Mercy belong ultimately to God and Him alone.
Is Matthew 20:9-16 unjust? "When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? [Or] am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’ Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
Is Matthew 18:23-27 unjust? "That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who decided to settle accounts with his servants. When he began the accounting, a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount. Since he had no way of paying it back, his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, his children, and all his property, in payment of the debt. At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.' Moved with compassion the master of that servant let him go and forgave him the loan."
I'd bring the quote I used earlier from St. Thomas Aquinas back again: “God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against His justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred, does nothing against justice, buts acts liberally or mercifully. The case is the same with one who pardons an offence committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the Apostle calls remission a forgiving; Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you (Eph 4:31). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness thereof. And thus it is said: Mercy exalteth [triumphs] itself about judgment (Jas 2:13).”
You're perfectly all right! I dropped off the map for Easter too.
-
On March 30, 2018 at 12:01 PM, anatess2 said:
I am so late to this topic and there's almost 4 pages of long deep texts that I need to go through to get the full conversation. I've just been catching a few paragraphs here and there and responding to those in isolation.
So, I don't know if what I'm gonna say here has already been delved at or not but I thought I'd just post a few basic thoughts here.
Yeah, there's a good amount of posts here!
Sounds good! I will say the two basic differences you are bringing up here have been mentioned, but they're always worth another look!
On March 30, 2018 at 12:01 PM, anatess2 said:First and foremost: There is a NUANCED DIFFERENCE between Catholic and LDS understanding of the Atonement - especially on the Law that Justice and Mercy acts on - due to the basic difference in our understanding of 1.) the Nature of God and 2.) the Nature of Man.
1.) What makes God God is not His Substance. We have the same substance (or the potential to be of the same substance) and clearly we are not God. What makes God God is His Will. The Law is the sum total of His Will that which makes Him God.
2.) LDS do not believe in ex nihilo creation. We believe that our consciousness (our Will) was not created by God but rather, it is an eternal entity in the same manner that God's Will is, in the same manner that matter is, in the same manner that energy is. This, to a Catholic, is a great heresy. In LDS understanding, God created the vessel to which our consciousness is able to Act upon (our Will exercised gaining Knowledge) because He saw us and He loved us and wants our conscious selves to gain knowledge and inherit the Knowledge that God has and shape our will to the Will that made Him God that is the condition by which God is in a state of pure Joy. Free Will is, therefore, God's greatest gift to us - keeping us Free to attain knowledge instead of enslaved to the will of God without it. For without Free Will we cannot be as God is.
At first glance, yes, it does seem nuanced, but at the heart of it, the concepts are radically different, which makes sharing perspectives difficult, because in using the same term, we mean completely different things!
1) Specifically that, in LDS theology, god's will is what makes god himself is something I haven't heard before (unless I forgot something :P)! You're saying that a perfect will is what characterizes his divinity?
2) Yes, I think this second point came up pretty quickly!
(I would just add that for something to be a heresy, it has to come out of members of the Catholic Church! Arianism, for instance, would be a heresy, since it came out of members of the Church who declared it as true. The Buddhist denial of a permanent, eternal soul, however, is not, because, even though it's gravely inaccurate, it does not stem from a direct perversion of Catholicism. The LDS Church was founded by people, such as Joseph Smith, who were not coming out of the Church, so on its own, this would not be considered a formal heresy, but just the belief of another religion.)
On March 30, 2018 at 12:01 PM, anatess2 said:- So, @MaryJehanne mentioned that God could just enact Mercy without the need for Justice or something to that effect. This cannot be because - as I have stated in vanilla versus chocolate example - if there was no Law that Justice and Mercy acts upon then God would cease to be God.
- For this Law is the entirety of God's Will. And it is His Will that makes Him God.
- The Law demands Justice. There's no escaping that without God ceasing to be God. The Law demands Mercy. There's no escaping that without God ceasing to be God.
- We cannot gain knowledge without knowing evil. Because without evil there is no good.
- And because we lack knowledge, we needs be with evil to know it, hence, Adam fell.
- By Law, no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God - the price, therefore, for sin is spiritual death (being removed from the presence of God), hence Adam was cast out. So we are stuck in the state of innocence without a way to gain knowledge and be as God is without choosing to fall as Adam fell and go through spiritual death.
- To be able to overcome spiritual death and be with God again, we need God to cease to be God (abandon the Law) or we need a Savior - somebody who is God, free from sin, to be put to spiritual death in our place to meet the demands of Justice and pay that price. That is Christ.
- His physical death on the cross is not the Atonement. "Father, why have you abandoned me?" is the Atonement - that complete spiritual separation from God, a spiritual death, which is complete darkness.
- Christ can rise from spiritual death (from which we cannot) and be with the Father again for Christ is God. And Christ offered Himself to die and the Father accepted His offering because Christ and the Father is God and God is Merciful.
My goodness, anatess, that's a bunch of stuff! I'lll try to unpack it as best I can.
(As you noticed, I numbered them to make answering easier!)
1. My perspective has been that Mercy is an ultimate, overflowing fulfillment of Justice, and that God is limitless in his Love (Mercy). There seems to be an assumption here I'm not familiar with! What law is Justice and Mercy acting upon? I'm a little confused by this! Can you help me understand what you mean?
2. His Will makes Him God? How so?
3. From my perspective, ff He's being forced to do these things, He's not actually just or merciful! If these don't stem from Him, but He has to abide by them or cease to exist, He's being controlled.
4. I don't understand how you've arrived at this first conclusion! Without evil there is no good? This would make God reliant on evil. I'd turn it around and say without Good, there is no evil. In Catholic theology, evil is only the absence of Good (God), not a yin and yang philosophy.
5. I'd cordially reject the idea that we need evil to know good.
If we did, that would mean I should research the grittiest of human sins and watch and listen to the worst of salacious media, so as to know good better. That seems more than a little counter-intuitive. Are you saying Adam's fall was orchestrated?
6. Yes, no unclean thing will dwell in the Beatific Vision! But, of course, on Earth God loves to come to poor sinners. God even took on the body of a man and dwelt with sinners. Yes, the result of sin is the detriment of being without God's presence, what I would call Hell. Adam was not completely abandoned by God, though. He was turned out of the garden, but He was not banned from experiencing God. Are you saying sin is necessary? That means God must have sinned to become good. I would rather be innocent than knowledgable! Besides, in the beatific vision we could share in the knowledge of God, no fall necessary.
7. Jesus did not undergo spiritual death, sin! That is a state of being, not a neutral suffering. A soul in Hell is in a permanent state of rejection. Christ could not do that, because that would be a contrary to His nature, and such action, if anyone were to do it, would have no merit whatsoever, being far from honorable.
8. As you can understand, from my perspective, complete spiritual separation from God would be impossible for Christ, since He is God and that would mean He was completely separate from Himself. Is what you mean a complete emotional separation? God did not and could not suffer spiritual death; spiritual death belongs only to creatures who reject Him!
9. Again, I'd emphasize spiritual death is not a sacrifice, it is an evil! Christ offered Himself to die? But this was the Father's plan... Christ Himself asked that, if it be His Father's Will, that the cup pass from Him. Matthew 26:39, Matthew 26:42.
I hope I understood your point of view in my responses!
-
@Carborendum Thank you for the suggestion!
Yeah, the live action Speed Racer was great fun and pretty true to the original! The candy-colored motif fit perfectly.
@Vort I grew up on Speed Racer! I need to re-watch the series again!
-
-
I know this is an old thread, but I was wondering if anyone's found any clean Anime to recommend, besides, of course, Studio Ghibli? (I haven't read through this whole thread, so excuse me if this has been addressed!
) I'm really interested in animation and love the beauty in the Japanese styles, but most of them are more than a little racy (in my experience anyway). -
-
12 minutes ago, person0 said:
This aspect of your post led me to some research. Excommunication is clearly a different thing in Catholicism than in Mormonism.
Oh, okay! Yes, it certainly is.
Is there a reason you linked the Dummies page? Is there something that’s bothering you?
-
19 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
What would be the difference between committing a mega-serious mortal sin (like cold-blooded premeditated murder) and excommunication?
Service is an act of love, and in turn strengthens that love.
To serve resentfully--without love--.... that's an empty gesture and not really service. It's just going through some motions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't anyone (like even a nonChristian) administer a Catholic baptism in case of emergency? I recall my atheist aunt (who works labor and delivery) saying that such was part of her possible duties in case a major baby-life-threatening emergency (she also mentioned how she's thankfully never been in that situation).
The difference would be that a mortal sin is a depravation of grace in the soul, and that excommunication is an exclusion from some aspects of membership as a last resort. It is not an expression of distaste at any grave sin, but an exclamation mark to emphasize how terrible a sin really is for the sake of a soul. Cold-blooded murder under ordinary circumstance (or as ordinary as murderous circumstances can be) are not automatically worthy of excommunication. Abortion, however, would be. The woman, and "all formal conspirators", would fall under automatic excommunication. This is because the purpose of excommunication in the Catholic Church is to highlight something as evil. Most people know cold-blooded murder is wrong. There's no need to pile anything extra on there. Sadly, however, abortion is being accepted as ethically permissible and has become legal in many countries. Because of this, it's necessary to emphasize that, no, this is wrong!
(NOTE: "To actually incur the excommunication one must know that it is an excommunicable offense at the time of the abortion. Canon 1323 provides that the following do not incur a sanction, those who are not yet 16, are unaware of a law, do not advert to it or are in error about its scope, were forced or had an unforeseeable accident, acted out of grave fear, or who lacked the use of reason (except culpably, as by drunkenness). Thus a woman forced by an abusive husband to have an abortion would not incur an excommunication, for instance, whereas someone culpably under the influence of drugs or alcohol would (canon 1325). In any case, whether one has been excommunicated or not, the sin of abortion must be confessed as the taking of innocent human life (5th Commandment). If the penitent did not know about this law at the time of the abortion then he or she was NOT excommunicated. If the person knew about the law but there were extenuating circumstances (such as mentioned above concerning c. 1323) then these factors should be mentioned to the confessor. He will say whether he has the faculty from the bishop to absolve from this excommunication or whether he even needs to. If he does not, he will privately and secretly obtain absolution from the bishop or send the person to a confessor who has that power." (italic emphasis added))
As mentioned in the note, if the excommunication was automatic, an individual simply needs to confess what happened to any Bishop (rather than an ordinary priest) in the sacrament of confession to lift it.
______
Yes, that is very true.
______
I believe that's correct! Just the proper form, with the proper intent and understanding, needs to be used.
-
On March 29, 2018 at 2:10 AM, person0 said:
I know you are planning to respond to me tomorrow, but I wanted to take additional note of a couple of things you said in your most recent post.
I am not sure that you or I could think of a principle that exists in physical or logical form that I would say at it's root was created rather than being an application of true principles that simply exist. That said, to your initial question, google defines fairness as, 'impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination'. Therefore I would say fairness has existed with God from the beginning as an attribute of justice. As mentioned in the OP, the scriptures teach us that God is not a 'respecter of persons' I think the above definition of fairness is an excellent example of what that means. The vernacular use of the idea of fairness often converts it into pseudo-justice that suits individual circumstances rather than actually being impartial. On another note, I have really liked anatess2's answers about the principle of love, and find myself in agreement with her.
You are absolutely correct about this. I agree 100%. Generally, in an appeal to scripture, it is an argument over interpretation. That's why any scriptures I have used thus far have only been to substantiate that my belief is based on source material I recognize as valid, and not an attempt to 'prove' that I am right. This thread is more of an exercise in discussing the logic related to God's methods anyway.
I interpret that you are referring to the justice of God being postponed rather than immediate at each occurrence of sin. If so, at face value, what you are saying is completely accurate, however, there is another principle at play. To the LDS paradigm, the atonement of Christ was valid and applicable before it ever happened. How? Because God's 'credit score' is infinity. To conceptualize this, let us consider that before the atonement was fulfilled, God was indebted to comply with justice on behalf of the sins of mankind. The date that justice would be paid was already set forth (when the atonement was fulfilled), and since God has a perfect 'credit score', it was already 100% known and understood that the debt would be paid, and therefore all things could proceed as though the debt had already been paid.
One way that we agree with you on this is that to the LDS paradigm, the crucifixion is not really the part of the atonement of Christ that applies to sin. The atonement is a 3 part event: Suffering for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, death (which just so happened to be via crucifixion), and the resurrection. Without all 3 parts the atonement is considered incomplete in LDS theology, because both spiritual death and physical death had to be overcome, and simply dying on the cross was not alone sufficient to pay the price of sin.
Anyway, everything else I think was addressed in my first response. Forgive me in advance for the pile on!
Yes, I'd agree with that to a degree (I'd say the laws grouped under the natural sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. are all created, though I would add that they are designed to reflect truths of God), but that's actually the opposite of what I'm trying to get at.
I didn't really mean anything by fairness itself, but thank you for going deeper into that; I was just selecting an abstract term, so no worries! What I'm trying to express is, some things are not matter, refined or otherwise. Where anatess mentioned that love is an action, I'd completely agree with her as well!
Scripture is often times very clear, but people can try to twist it to fit different ideas (especially when withdrawn from Biblical, historical, theological, and philosophical contexts), and without a shared deference to an authority who can define the meaning, it's difficult to use certain passages as a foundational argument! I was mostly commenting, though, on the fact that there were no passages cited to support the idea, so it was more that it was an unfounded statement, rather than that it was the Bible. No, I don't mean postponed, I mean excused (if I understand what you're referring to correctly!)!
If all mercy was was allotting payment for a debt, it would be merely a baseline justice, not actual mercy. Mercy is bestowed as a gift; it should flow as an abundance, giving where something is not attainable. For instance, if you had a small child (we'll say age 8, past the age of reason, to make things clearer) and she rebelliously hit you, what payment do you need to receive to forgive her? In justice, you could punish her. In mercy, you could limit the punishment, not being cruel, but still giving some so she learns her lesson: it's not good to hit Dad. But if you were to limit it, who pays the extra due? Does another child have to stand in for her so that her debt may be payed in full? If God is less capable that you or I in giving mercy, what kind of God would He be?
Yes, I've heard of that a bit! In the Catholic perspective, the garden is part of His Passion as well as the Crucifixion. It's probably more proper for me to say "Passion" than just Crucifixion when talking about the fullness of the Atonement! I don't know about "simply" dying on the cross, though! I think My Lord could have cut His finger and that's more than He ever should have suffered.
You're completely fine! It just takes me a while to write out my answers, so amongst my other day-to-day things, it's slow going.
As long as you're okay with waiting, I'm perfectly all right! -
On March 29, 2018 at 1:19 AM, anatess2 said:
You mentioned somewhere about different types of love. This was popularized by Freud, I believe. I don’t claim to fully understand what Freud actually meant by “types” but from my meager understanding, I don’t think there are different types of love. There is only one type of love and that is the love of Christ. Love, as willed by God, is that will/desire to bring someone with us closer to Him.
There may be different expressions of it like physical intimacy is one of the most majestic expressions of love that comes with procreative power but this expression is bound by God’s Law solely under the covenant of matrimony. Expressing love through physical intimacy with somebody not one’s spouse is, therefore, not Love. It’s a mockery of it as it drives us farther from God. Make sense?
But that love between spouses is the same love for our children and the same love for our neighbors. It is our desire to bring all these people with us closer to God. Christ does not say love your spouse more or differently or love ourselves more. Helping our neighbor through debilitating illness, for example, is an expression of love that is righteous. But helping our neighbor through illness by mercy killing is not love as it brings us farther from God.
So, as we love, we become more and more like God to eventually become one with Him.
God created us because He loves us. That is - He wills for us to be One with Him. I think goodness is not separate from will and knowledge. God’s will is good. If it is not good, it is not God. That’s what I meant with that vanilla/chocolate example.
By the way, I was devout Roman Catholic for 30 years before becoming LDS, to the sorrow of my loving mother. She still sends gifts to the Carmelite sisters to ceaselessly pray for my salvation.
Happy Easter! Christ is risen!
Oh, no! What I'm discussing is a much more ancient concept.
I'm not familiar with a list of loves according to Freud, but most of what he would discuss would probably be of exclusively carnal nature. (Before diving any deeper into an explanation, I should clarify that insofar as we're discussing ultimate Love, there is only one, true, complete form of love, namely Charity (coming from a Catholic perspective of Charity not being exclusively giving money and objects to the poor, but rather selfless love).) I would not condone Freudian ideas, many of which are in direct opposition to Charity and the Church.
What I was referring to was the ancient Greek language's specific words for specific types of love, where English has only one. For instance, if someone were to say "I love ice-cream," "I love my pet," "I love my sister," "I love my spouse," and "I love my God," they would be talking about different sorts of love in each instance, using one word with varying definitions (You do not love ice-cream in the same way you love God). These Greek words would be Agápe ("'love: esp. charity; the love of God for man and of man for God.'"), Éros ("'love, mostly of the sexual passion.'"), Philia ("'affectionate regard, friendship,' usually 'between equals.'" - brotherly love), and Storge ("'love, affection' and 'especially of parents and children' It is the common or natural empathy, like that felt by parents for offspring"). The word "love" in our language is used to refer to liking someone or something, being infatuated with someone, being attracted to someone, familial affection, total selflessness (Charity), and complete adoration and worship.
Yes, I would agree with you that that is not true love, because that act intrinsically says that one person is giving all they are to the other (selflessness). When they're not married, that's a lie, because they haven't totally given of themselves (there are "no strings attached"). Yes, that can be an expression of Charity (and desirably so!), but not necessarily, even among married couples.
If you're referring to True Love, Charity, yes, that would be present in each instance. But love between spouses have different aspects than love of children and neighbors. I owe more honor and respect to my parents than I do to the person across the street. In another context, I would not worship (give total adoration to) my parents or my neighbors. I would, however, worship God. Yes, it is our desire to bring these people to God, which would be an element of Charity in that Charity wills the good of another. But that can't be the only type of love, since you couldn't apply that to God without turning the statement in on itself.
I agree, mercy killing would not be loving and is anything but merciful in nature.
Yes, He created us because He loves us and wants us to be happy with Him forever! I'm not exactly sure what you mean by goodness not being separate from will and knowledge, but I do agree that they would not be in God, since all those are intrinsic to His Nature! Goodness, knowledge, and will, however, aren't necessarily tied to each other in application to us, since someone can be good without having knowledge, and someone can have knowledge and a will, such as a demon, without goodness. Yes, I'd agree with God's will being good. His Will is His Love.
Ah, yes, I noticed you used to be Catholic. The Roman rite is beautiful.
A Ukrainian Catholic priest I know described the stylistic difference between the Western and Eastern Catholic rites being that the Eastern "is looking into heaven" and the Western "is kneeling at the foot of the cross". (Not that that's exclusive or anything! Just a way to express the different charisms.) Poor mom. That's rough on parents. For the Divine Mercy Novena (I've been receiving it by email), I just got something about this today for day 5 from St. Faustina's diary! "Today bring to Me the souls of those who have separated themselves from My Church, and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy. During My bitter Passion they tore at My Body and Heart, that is, My Church. As they return to unity with the Church, My wounds heal and in this way they alleviate My Passion (Diary, 1218)". Why ever did you leave? @ProDeo Hello!
I'd mostly agree, but maybe refine the one-liner to "willing the good of another"! (Thinking of Love as an action of the will rather than simply a physical action!)
-
On March 30, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Traveler said:
I would add a couple of point (principles) that will help understand basic differences between LDS and Catholics.
First Principle. LDS believe that a “restoration” is necessary and will take place in the “Last Days” before the return of Christ – it is necessary to prepare a people (covenant children of G-d) for the return of Christ.
Second Principle. Ordinances are sacred rituals that have sacred purposes and meaning. The purposes and meaning are represented symbolically in the ordinances and cannot fully be understood by the world and those uninitiated by the spirit of G-d. The symbolism of ordinances is not just of things to be remembered from the past but also things to be looked forward to in the future. Thus, the sacrament of the bread and wine (water) not only reference the sacrificial lamb of G-d (Passover and Atonement) but also the redemption of the World (feast – last supper) when Christ returns. Thus, we learn that the ordinances are also prophetic as well as a remembrance.
I would add something here that touches both on the first principle of restoration and the principal of sacred ordinances. In Isaiah (chapter 24) Isaiah prophesies of an apostasy – not an apostasy of “doctrine” but of 3 parts. Part 1 is a “transgression” of the Law. Part 2 is a changing of the Ordinances. And Part 3 is the breaking of the everlasting covenant. Thus, the restoration is a restoration of the Law, reestablishing the unchanged prophetic ordinances and finely the bringing back of the Everlasting Covenant that has been broken.
If you are willing I would again add something to the discussion concerning the “Last Days”. The prophet Daniel revealed that the restoration would take place at a time when a great kingdom of iron (mostly believed to be the Roman empire) would first be divided into 2 empires (two legs) and finely into 10 very week (mixture of iron with clay) kingdoms represented by 10 toes. That the Kingdom of G-d would then be restored (represented by a stone cut out of the mountain without hands) and would roll forth as the 10 remaining kingdoms of Rome fall and are replaced but no more kings.
The Traveler
Hello, The Traveler.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Yes, I do know about a restoration being an essential part of LDS theology.
Okay, that's an interesting perspective! So they are more interacting with the symbolic, versus the Catholic view of receiving the supernatural?
So, if I'm understanding your point correctly, you're proposing that the LDS ordinances are ancient Jewish rituals that were restored later on (But what do you mean by Everlasting Covenant? At first glance, I'd say it can't really be everlasting if it was broken)?
Thank you for elaborating!
Yes, but I don't believe that's viable evidence, since Isaiah 24 is talking about the Israelites turning on their relationship with God, not future Christendom. It also doesn't speak to a total, but rather partial apostasy, as is shown in other Old Testament selections, such as Amos 9:8: "Behold the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from the face of the earth: but yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord" (emphasis added). I'm not entirely sure what part of Daniel you're speaking to, but that still seems like it's in reference to Judaism and not a complete apostasy of Christ's Church.
God bless!
-
On March 28, 2018 at 11:16 PM, bytebear said:
We don't distinguish sins into categories. One must be sinless to stand before God. But, some sins are harder to repent of than others, and some are impossible to bring restitution (murder, for example). And, one's knowledge and covenants with God also make it harder, because you have outwardly (via baptism) committed to live the commandments, and then broke the covenant. Same with the covenant of marriage, which is why adultery is considered more serious, and even more so if the covenant of marriage was done in a temple.
But ultimately, our goal is to become perfected through Christ, which is a process of repentance, and making and keeping covenants (baptism, marriage, etc.). So we do distinguish between "saving" ordinances and non-saving ordinances. Saving ordinances (baptism) are required for salvation, and have promises that extend through the eternities. Temple covenants and temple marriage also involve promises of rewards in the afterlife (eternal families). Other ordinances are not considered saving ordinances. These include baby blessings (christening), blessings of healings, last rites (which we really don't do, but you may have a blessing of comfort), dedication and blessings on homes, etc. These are not required for salvation.
Here's additional information that explains it better than me.
https://www.lds.org/youth/topic/covenants-and-ordinances?lang=engYes, that's good to know!
We also think someone must be sinless to enter the Beatific Vision, but that's why we have confession and purgatory! I suppose we might be able to agree that grave sins (what we'd call mortal sins) are harder to repent of, simply because that's a definite refusal of God's Love, depriving a soul of sanctifying grace. Adultery is more serious? Do you mean in contrast to murder or the Catholic Church's concept?
Ah, okay! I think I understand. Marriage is a saving ordinance?
-
On March 28, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Jane_Doe said:
That is also the purpose/hope of LDS excommunication. It is also reserved for the gravest offenses (like murder puts you in that boat).
Big picture thing: for Catholics, baptism is something you have done to you- usually without your consent, and there is no way to undo it.
LDS baptism is a choice: you are choosing to take on the name of Christ as His disciple- it is a covenant you make with God. However, God is an a prison keeper- you can indeed live, if you truly desire. Excommunication is just that: you (through your actions) are choosing to abandon your baptismal covenant with God.
In short: Once again turn back to Christ.
Useful tidbit: LDS don't group sins into "venial" or "mortal". Sin is sin. Of course, some involves a much bigger mess to clean up than others.
Again, the hope is that serving your family/fellow man is always a sub-section of serving God. Situations where a family member is abusive, or attacks your relationship with God, or otherwise destructive are tragic.
Same goal, same destination, same value. Slightly different routes. For another example: during marriage, a man and a woman are united with God. I can't step in the husband's spot-- that would just be silly!
Ah, okay! (Yeah, for us that would be even graver offenses. To the extent of my knowledge, you're not excommunicated for murder; there would have to be some other qualifications to make it an automatic excommunication, which "impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts".)
Yes, the LDS and the Catholic perspective of Baptism is a little different! For us, It's not a matter of a visual expression of accepting Christ, but a conferring of grace upon an individual. One of the main aspects of Baptism is the remission of both actual and original sin. It's not a membership contract as much as an adoption, letting the children draw near to Him. Through mortal sin, you can leave God, but you will always have the mark on your soul that shows you were once His in grace. Once you turn back to God, you re-enter a State of Grace.
Good to know! Yes, I've seen that in most religions! From our perspective, we believe sin is sin as well, and no sin is ever worth committing, but venial sin causes damage to your relationship with God, whereas mortal sin severs it completely, putting your soul in grave peril (and this would have be a knowing, purposeful rejection, not a mistake!).
Yes, I'd agree that it may be called a sub-section of serving God, because God is our primary love, not the other way around! We don't love God because it's a sub-section of serving our family. I'm also wondering if there's a distinction between "loving" and "serving" in the LDS faith? As an observation, I've noticed (if I remember rightly!) that in discussing love, service seems to be used somewhat interchangeably... Service would of course follow love, and love of God without some sort of discipleship wouldn't be true love, but there still seems to be a distinction (love does not equal service, and someone can serve without loving), and I'm wondering if that's something you recognize in your faith?
On March 28, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Jane_Doe said:Not really.
Similarity between LDS and Catholics: baptism must be done by one with a valid priesthood. A difference does come in with the Catholic disclaimer 'except in emergencies'.
Similarity between LDS and an believer's-baptism Protestants (cause some Protestant do baptize infants): the baptizee must be a believer.
Some Protestants will say being baptized is a necessary thing for salvation (agreeing with LDS), some not.
Similarity between Catholics and majority of Protestants: baptism wipes away the original sin
Now a big question: what about a person who dies without the opportunity to be baptized?
Yes, you're right, any member of the Church can baptize when ministers aren't available or are lacking (all Catholic laity have a baptismal priesthood)!
Yes, that second point is what I noticed most clearly as the similarity!
Without the opportunity to be baptized? Do you mean that they want to be and aren't able to be or that they never knew they should get baptized at all?
Those who know they should be baptize and choose not to, or those who do not know about it in any sense, but refuse good as they know it and choose hatred, aren't in a good spot.
For those who know of baptism into Christianity, and wish to receive it but can't (for instance, on their way to being baptized, they have a fatal car accident), there is the baptism of desire (God is not limited by human action in His ability to grant His Love and grace). For those who die for Christ, but have not been baptized, their martyrdom would be baptism of blood.
For those who have never been properly exposed to Truth, by not fault of their own, or live in a place or time that keeps them from hearing the Good News, what is necessary is that they desire to good, accepting God as they know Him. It is possible to know some aspects of God and objective goodness through natural reasoning. I was discussing this with Person0 on the Atonement thread, and I brought up one of the later scenes in The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis, a perfect illustration of this idea.
Happy Easter!
He is risen!
-
On 3/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, person0 said:
Pretty much. I would say God is both of those things. To me saying God is Justice, and yet also saying that justice as a true principle exists independent of God are both true statements. Like @Jane_Doe phrased it, they are both outside and internal.
Oh! Okay, I think I get it now! It's kind of like justice is a material He's made from, in a sense? Or an ingredient? Justice exists outside of God as an eternal principle that was used to make God?
On 3/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, person0 said:Love can be received by all intelligent beings, and through the Light of Christ can be enacted by the same, it is an inherent characteristic of the perfection of God. Like justice and mercy, God is benevolent. Applicably, LDS scripture and doctrine also dictates that the intelligence that each of us posses is eternal:
Ah, okay! I see. What I was trying to get at by asking that question is the nature of the thing "love". From my perspective, I'd sat the natural world is only one plane of existence, with the spiritual being something entirely different and supernatural. What I'm asking is, from your perspective, what you believe about love if everything's refined matter? What material structures make up love?
On 3/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, person0 said:Yes, I can understand your perspective, with exception that the Greek and Roman gods were imperfect (although powerful) beings, where God is Perfect. I would suggest that I think the primary thing that is causing that 'block' is our difference in opinion on what it means to be Omnipotent. To me, I can't imagine the idea of something being created from nothing, and yet to me that has no logical contradiction to God's Omnipotence.
Yes! (Yeah, the ancient Greco-Roman gods were awful! It makes me sad to think that's all those poor people knew about as far as God goes
) Yes, I see your point. I think that's a part of it, but I'd still propose that perhaps omnipotence isn't the most direct term for what's being defined, since omni simply means all? If omnipotence is having all power, but god lacks power in several circumstances and ways, that seems to be less than all power... It seems that the eternal principles have all the power, since they've defined everything, even god.
On 3/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, person0 said:I see what you are saying, but the way you wrote it it's not something I could get on board with. I don't think God could decree something to deserve more than it deserves, except via the use of the atonement of Christ to fulfill justice (goes back to how I think God is not capable of circumventing justice). In that case, it is still not mankind who deserves it, but it is God himself who deserves to be permitted to bestow it upon us. I'm willing to bet you probably agree on this for the most part, but we just have different ways of explaining it.
Yeah, I think that's probably true, except my perspective would still hold back on the not circumventing justice part! You're right; I didn't mean we'd actually deserve more intrinsically.
On 3/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, person0 said:I agree with this part completely, but somehow it seems to be contradictory to the first part of that same paragraph. Oh well.
No, sorry, that's what I meant in my first part. I just phrased it really confusingly, I guess.
On 3/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, person0 said:I knew you were going to say that!
The answer is that they are opposites to each other, but they are both congruous with perfection. Justice and mercy are two sides of the same coin. Without mercy, God could only create perfect beings, or would risk losing all of His creations, without justice, all of creation would no longer be subjected to God's rule, but would be free to act without consequence. That wouldn't work. Justice and mercy are not opposite in the sense that Good and Evil are opposite. It's kind of like a magnet, there is a positive and a negative side to the magnet. If you chop off the negative side, then half of the positive side of the magnet immediately becomes a new negative side, because the magnet cannot exist without both. Both the positive and negative charge of a magnet are good things that can be used in good and productive ways.
For true opposites, my perspective would be based on the foundational principle that one thing cannot be both itself and its opposite at the same time and in the same respect. In the magnet example, one end is the south pole and one end is the north pole. One side is only ever the north pole and one side is only ever the south pole. One side is not both the north and the south pole. There are two places for the opposites to reside, at the end of the left and the right (or top and bottom), and the opposites never enter one part together. God is not a magnet, with half of Himself being only Justice and half being only Mercy! He is both, at the same time. From that, I'd surmise that they must not be intrinsic, true opposites.
Another proof to explain my perspective would be this. The opposite of justice is injustice. The opposite of mercy is mercilessness. If justice is the opposite of mercy, mercy must be unjust, and if mercy is the opposite of justice, justice must be merciless. But if God is Mercy and Justice, being merciless is a contradiction to His nature and being unjust is contrary to His nature.
St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this issue, saying:
“God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against his justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally or mercifully."
And: “The case is the same with one who pardons an offense committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the apostle [Paul] calls remission a forgiving: "Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you" (Eph 4:32). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness thereof. Thus it is said, "Mercy exalts itself above judgment" (Jas 2:13).”
On 3/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, person0 said:Yay!!!!
-
11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:
Great discussion going on here!
Not quite. Righteousness is part of God-- it's outside of Him, and yet also inside of Him completely.
I find it easier to explain it this ways: LDS don't see what is "right" as being defined as "something God just randomly decided that to be defined as 'right' ".
Hm... Okay, thank you for explain that! Perhaps I'm not understand correctly, but isn't that the same as what I said? Did I miss something? Let me try again... So he's not self-defined, he's intrinsically defined by righteousness, which is an Ultimate Principle that exists outside of all the rest of reality?
For that last part, I never meant to say that God randomly decided what was right and wrong; I mean that He is righteousness itself and the only reason there is a right is because it is Him!
11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:Obviously love is an emotion. (I feel like I'm missing part of the question).
Sorry, I was looking more for anatess2's answer!
You know, love as an act of the will? Infatuation and some affection are emotions, but true love isn't an emotion... God died for love of us, but He probably wasn't getting many positive feelings when he was being nailed to the cross!
Since we kind of missed each other on that one (it's hard because the English language doesn't have many distinct words to express the different types of love!); I can try another! What is fairness? What material structures make up fairness? Do you get where I'm trying to go with this?
(Sorry I wasn't clear enough earlier!)
11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:God is love, justice, mercy, perfection, glory, grace etc. LDS see the 'first mover' idea as being outside of scripture (obviously we see differently on this matter). For me... I see a lot of Creedal Christians get very deflated without the idea of a 'first mover'. For me... it is odd-- like "is God described in scripture somehow not good enough for you?" Again-- I mean NO disrepect there, and apologize in the very likely event I feel short. But that is my knee-jerk reaction as an LDS person.
Sorry, this may sound silly, but I'm not familiar with the term Creedal Christians!
It vaguely rings a bell, but I can't put my figure on it's exact definition! How come they get deflated?
Thank you for saying you didn't mean any disrespect!
To the "is God described in scripture somehow not good enough for you?", you'd have to understand, though, as you pointed out to a degree, that from my perspective I could validly just turn that statement back to you, like we were in a game of ping-pong! I appreciate that you wanted to give me your opinion, and I certainly accept it as that, but do you see how that wouldn't be able to make much more of an impact than a little bit of pain, since it's a claim that's more subjective than objective in the way you've presented it? There wasn't really anything added after it to support it, but I have evidence from the source you're suggesting (the Bible) to the contrary (such as Colossians 1:16-17, Jeremiah 4:23, Isaiah 45:7, Job 26:7) and none to its defense. So, although I know you did preface and close this with an expression of your good intentions, do you see how it's still hard for it to be fruitful, even as just a sharing of perspective? Thank you all the same, though!
11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:Ah, for LDS that's a contradiction-- like the round square. God doesn't do that. The desired rewards (good or ill) are what they are, God cannot just ignore that or decree squares to be round. When God shows us mercy through the atonement, it is because Christ's sacrifice is fulfilling the negative condenses we ourselves deserved. Hence God satisfies justice, and shows us mercy.
I think I understand what you're saying! But I would add, from my Catholic perspective, that if justice were required to run its course, the Atonement would never have happened in the first place, since in pure justice, the Crucifixion would never have happen. The Atonement itself was an act of mercy, so if He needed the Atonement to offer mercy, the reasoning would become circular and the Atonement could never have happened. Likewise, the merit from the Crucifixion doesn't automatically apply to our sins in its nature. It was infinitely valuable by the suffering Christ endured, which He then chose to offer for our sins. By offering Himself, He excused us from His justice, since in justice we did not deserve even for Him to pay our debt for us. And, as I think I mentioned somewhere before in this thread, He was actively merciful in the Old Testament, before the Atonement! Some Bible passages I'd point to would be James 2:13, Roman 9:15, Romans 9:18, and Romans 5:8.
11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:They are not opposites in the fact that they cancel each other out.
I don't believe there are different forms of opposites! 'Opposite' means opposing, conflicting, irreconcilable, clashing, contrary, contradictory, to take synonyms from a dictionary. From my perspective, I'd say there's a difference between opposites and complements! Opposites are contrary, like goodness and evil. Complements are different enough to be a separate principle, but at the heart of it have a fundamental basis so that they can work together. So life and death are opposites; they cancel each other out. But the human brain and the human heart are complements; together they can keep the body alive. They are different "principles", one is the central nervous system, which, for one thing, allows the heart to beat, the other is the an organ that pumps blood throughout the body which, in turn, allows the brain to work. While different, they share common ground: being made of flesh, oriented towards the life and function of the body, working together to allow it to thrive. Do you see what I'm trying to express from my perspective?
Again, God bless!
11 hours ago, anatess2 said:If I may interject in your lovely conversation with @MaryJehanne. I don't agree with this.
Love is not an emotion. Love is the ultimate application of Free Will. Or in other words, Love is an Action (Decision) more so than an Emotion. Emotion is the decision expressed.
Here's an illustration: God loves us. Applying Love as an emotion clearly drastically minimizes the implication of the sentence God loves us.
So, how this applies to the conversation about God: In LDS understanding, what makes God God is not his material substance (as we also are of the same material substance - or at least the potential for such material substance - and we clearly are not God). Rather, what makes God God is the totality of His Will with His Perfect Knowledge.
If we bring this to a childlike example - If liking vanilla is the sum total of God's will then Beelzebub liking chocolate makes him not God. Did that make sense?
I certainly agree with love being a decision! The emotion, in its true form, not infatuation or anything, is an expression of it, but I'd add that it's not necessary to signal love, since someone who is depressed, for example, may love God, but feel no emotion in doing so!
I'm not sure if the last to parts were directed towards me, so please excuse me if they weren't!
I would say goodness is a separate quality from will and knowledge! I'm not sure what you mean exactly by the last sentence (I'm sorry!), but I'd be happy to try to share my perspective on it if you were able to break it down some more for me! Thank you for adding your perspective to the pool!
@person0 I'm so sorry, but I think I'm going to have to try to write my reply to you tomorrow! Thank you and God bless!
-
15 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:
When a person is ex-coommicated, it is the result of their actions completely severing their relationship with God. They have thrown His name in trash and walked off to love sin. Coming back from that involves a COMPLETE transformation -- that man who trashed Christ's name needs to have died, his ways completely forsaken, and honest desire to be a real disciple of Christ bearing His name.
Oh, okay... I think the concepts of excommunication our a little different in our churches! For us excommunication is a the "severest censure" used as a "medicinal penalty" to help wake the individual up to what they've done so as to bring them back. Essentially, it's exile, but it can't revoke Baptism, which is permanent. It's reserved for the gravest of willing offenses, such as heresy, an "obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth". Excommunication for the LDS church, though, invalidates the member's baptism? What do they have to do to come back?
15 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:I halfway understand your question. I think a couple of examples will help:
---I am a mother of a toddler. She is below the age of reason/accountability and cannot sin because she doesn't understand things yet-- that brain's still developing.
-- At church we have a special-ed girl, who is 11 years biologically, but only about 18 months mentally. She cannot sin because she doesn't understand.
-- I teach the 8 year-old's at church. These girls are of the age of accountability/reason: they understand things and are capable of sinning. For example, if one of them tells me a falsehood, they are sinning (they know better). This is different than my toddler who still doesn't understand this concept of fibbing yet.
-- Bob grows up in a household where fortification is run-of-the-mill. Bob's never heard of God, and never heard that fornicating is against God's ways, etc. "Sining" is defined as willfully rebelling against God. Bob is not sinning never even heard of God or been told not to fornicate, and hence can't willfully rebel against Him and sin.Yes! I think I agree with most of this, except the last one may still qualify as a venial sin, since this might be an instance when the wrong is universally understood by the moral sense God gave mankind... but maybe not! I'm not sure.
23 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:I'm struggling to follow you here... a lot of it comes down to "why are you leaving?"
Say your father is abusive and destructive to you/your relationship with God, LDS do believe you should keep healthy boundaries. Yes, you always love your dad, but if it's necessary to move out of the house and limit contact, then you should do that.
Another example is empty-nester LDS couples do leave on mission trips, serving God that way.
But if you're asking if I'm going to just dump my toddler off in the street to go off another way, that's a big "NO!!"--- that would be in violation of both great commandments. Right now it is my duty to God to raise her the best I can, teaching her His ways.
Oh, okay! I'm thinking in a more abstract way here. What I mean is, there's a requirement to follow God no matter what. There's not a requirement to follow your parents no matter what, even if they're nice people. One Bible passage in particular I'm thinking of is Matthew 10:34-37, "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;"
To hopefully clear things up, I'm not asking about whether to love family or not, I'm asking about which intrinsically deserves a higher form and degree of love, as a higher priority? What does the LDS church think of this? Hopefully that was easier to follow.
23 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:For LDS, both genders do have the same core requirement: to love God with their whole heart, soul, and mind. Taking on His name at baptism is part of this loving God with their whole heart, soul, and mind. Likewise a man serving as a priest is part of this same love of God.
Ah, okay! So it's the same core requirement, then, with an extra step on one side?
@bytebear Thank you! Ah, I see. As a Catholic, I do agree with that first part. But, as far as Baptism goes, it seems like it's fair to say the LDS church and certain Protestant denominations share a similar notion in this area? That Baptism is a sign of accepting God, and that infants cannot be Baptized?
-
9 hours ago, person0 said:
I like the way you put that, however, since I believe the laws to which I was referring are co-eternal with God, an have existed either as part of Him or along side Him for all eternity, there was never a moment when he 'established' them. They simply always have been. Specifically in this case, I was only intending to refer to His justice and mercy, both.
Thank you.
Yes, I think I understand your perspective on this now! You believe God is not self-defined, but is still objectively defined by eternal principles outside of himself? Did I get that right? (For me, I'd say the eternal principles actually have an intelligence, and that's God! So my God would be just the step above yours.)
9 hours ago, person0 said:Okay so based on this it appears we actually agree, and even the thing I just wrote in the previous paragraph was me responding to me not understanding you not understanding me, haha. Except that your definition of 'created' and mine are entirely different because of your belief of creation ex-nihilo and my belief of creation ex-materia.
Oh, okay! Great! So our main difference there is again that your perspective is that justice and mercy define God, but are outside of Him. But on the concept of ex-materia, I'm still confused about how you hold your viewpoint... not everything can be explained by matter, even refined matter that is unseeable. For instance, what is love?
9 hours ago, person0 said:I understand what you are saying. But just to make sure my view is also clear, because I accept the idea of creation ex-materia, in actuality I believe that there is no such thing as a 'first movement of existence'. There is not anything that has ever been brought into being in the sense of not existing at all and then existing all of a sudden. Everything that will ever exist has always existed without beginning and without end, at least in the form of unorganized matter. However, the transformation of unorganized (chaotic) matter into organized animate and inanimate entities has occurred only as moved upon by God and His power and influence.
I see. From my perspective, I really couldn't stand by that though, since it rings markedly of certain brands of materialism and nominalism. If I accepted the concept you are suggesting, I'd be accepting a version of God that is really just a superman, but not any sort of ultimate power, more along the lines of the gods of the Greeks and Romans, such as Zeus and Apollo. Do you see why I'm meeting a block here?
9 hours ago, person0 said:We will have to agree to disagree on this too I suppose. To me the simplest definition of justice is, 'to receive exactly what you deserve'. The simplest definition of mercy is, 'to receive more than you deserve'. The idea that someone could deserve more than they deserve is illogical and contradictory to me. So to me Justice and Mercy are opposites. However, I believe that both are a an intrinsic part of God's nature, and He will always fulfill both by the most prudent and efficient means possible.
Theoretically I could accept the notion that God might be technically capable of having developed an alternative method to save us. However, I still would have to reject that He would ever actually do it on the premise that He would have done it that way if it had been more prudent and efficient. He chose the atonement, therefore the atonement must be the only perfect way, which to me the same as saying it is the only way it could be done by a perfect God. Based on this I suppose we might not be entirely in disagreement on the 'alternative method' idea, perhaps just different paradigms.
I see what you mean! I didn't explain myself well in that area. I'd say a person can 'deserve more than they deserve' in the eyes of creation if God has decreed it. We would deserve it not by our own merits, but by the merit of his Divine Will. For instance, humans have an innate dignity, but that dignity only comes because God has bestowed it on us, because He values us in His love. We don't deserve dignity of our own merit. (I realize we'll probably disagree on that, because our concept of the human person is radically different as well!)
But, wait, how can God have two opposites in His being? From my perspective, that would make Him self-contradictory... For example, I can't both be dead and alive in the same sense at the same time, I can't be both human and non-human, and I can't be both truly loving and hateful. So, if God is both merciful and just, they must not be opposites, otherwise His very being would be an absurdity, such as having a person who is both dead and alive.
I do agree the Atonement is the best method as far as I know! And I think I'm agreeing with you on the rest of it, actually. He could have done it differently, from my perspective, but I say He never would do it differently, since He did do it this way, and He always makes the perfect choice, since He's perfection itself (which is pretty close to what you're saying)!
9 hours ago, person0 said:This is kind of a rehash of my first paragraph but as a reminder, He didn't actually 'establish' the laws to which I am referring, they have always been a part of him. Also, please be reminded as I mentioned in the previous post, a commandment is not the same as an eternal law. Also, I failed to make clear that the laws of physics and mortality that affect us are also not something I would refer to as eternal laws that apply to the context in which I was speaking. In this situation I was referring to 3 eternal principles only; justice, mercy, and agency (free will). To me unlimited fish and loaves does not contradict anything. The way I see it, God takes even the air, reformulates the neutrons, protons and electrons that comprise the atoms of oxygen, etc, to now be atoms that are organized as fish and bread, easy peasy! Water to wine, same thing, hydrogen and oxygen molecules are re-organized into different molecules that compose wine. The inability of mankind to create and command in this way does not comprise an eternal law that must not be contradicted, just a characteristic of our mortality. Philosophically, the only things that must not be contradicted are things that existed as part of God 'in the beginning' (i.e. all of His characteristics/traits).
That does make your perspective clearer; thank you!
9 hours ago, person0 said:You were, I was just restating/overstating my objective.
It did! And I hope I have appropriately clarified my thoughts and perspectives as well.
Oh, good, on both accounts! I think you've expressed them clearly!
May Christ bless you!
-
3 hours ago, person0 said:
Personally from a philosophical perspective I would phrase it in such a way to say that if God operates within a law, even if He created the law, the law is made equal with Him because He obeys it. We know He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, we therefore know He will always obey a law that He follows today. The law requires Him to enforce it, and He requires the law in order to accomplish His will. Once the law is defined and implemented, God cannot change it without contradicting himself, therefore, because He is perfect and unchanging, He will not change it. As a result, although a law defined by God is still an inanimate principle, it is yet equal in status with God.
Because of the inability to contradict Himself, any law that God has established cannot be redefined. In order to prevent confusion, God's commandments to mankind are not the same as laws he implements to govern his works and Himself. Any commandment given to man can be implemented, altered, or eliminated, so long as He does not contradict an eternal law He established.
I don't think this necessarily has to disagree with what you said, but perhaps expounds upon it from a different perspective.
Yes, from my Catholic perspective, I would agree that God is the same and unchanging -- in His essence. But I'd diverge from your thinking when you say He can't change a principle He made. By what you're defining as change, He would have changed when He established the rule you say He can't change now. Those that are truly an innate part of Him, though, won't change, like His infinite Mercy, or like His being God. Whether there's such a thing as a dog, though? He could totally subtract dogs from existence without compromising His nature!
3 hours ago, person0 said:Wow! I must admit that just about everything in this paragraph is going to be an area where we will have to agree to disagree, haha. LDS doctrine is almost exactly contradictory to most of what you have said here. I certainly do not believe that stating God cannot create matter from nothing places any limitation upon Him, because I believe that matter is an uncreated substance, which cannot be created. LDS doctrine directly rejects the idea of creation ex-nihilo. Regarding this, Joseph Smith taught the following:
In addition to matter being an uncreated substance, we also believe the same about spirit:
Because of these beliefs. The traditional Christian definition of a 'creature' of God, is something that does not exist in LDS theology. Man, beast, earth, etc, were all created by God, but were created from eternally existing substances that have always been co-eternal with God. To me it is entirely logical and reasonable to suggest that if God did not have a beginning or end, why would matter have had to have one? Philosophically speaking, just because one sees God as the 'first mover', does not have to mean He did not move upon something that already existed but was incapable of moving itself. If all physical and spiritual substance is understood as co-eternal with God, there would not be any logical need for a primary God above Him.
Ha ha!
Yeah, that would make sense. Catholic doctrine and LDS doctrine split very definitively along this point, which is why I think a lot of the things I've been talking about when explaining and stating my perspective don't line up for you. I'm making underlying assumptions about the nature of man, but especially the nature of God that we don't share, so we're saying some similar things with very different meanings! I was expressing a fundamental, orthodox Catholic viewpoint; the Catholic Church would strictly reject the idea that anything could exist before or beyond God, so that's where I'm coming from. What I wrote there was essentially a paraphrase of St. Thomas Aquinas's first, second, and third proofs for the existence of God from his 13th century work, Summa Theologicae. For instance, my perspective would totally align with his second proof:
"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."
I have heard of the LDS perspective that spirit is refined matter! From my Catholic perspective, we'd believe the spiritual is an entirely different nature, but you probably know that!
Just to clarify my view, by definition, our concept of first mover would be the first movement of existence, of coming into being; if something exists to be physically moved, it had already been brought into being!
3 hours ago, person0 said:I agree with this statement, but with limitations. I believe He can only withhold His justice because of the Atonement of Christ, not because He could just do it cause He wanted to. Obviously, this means (as previously suggested), that I personally believe the Atonement of Christ was required, and that God would not have done it had there been another way. LDS scriptures corroborate this idea:
Referring back to the first thing discussed in this response, even if God created the law of justice, He cannot suspend or avoid the law without contradicting himself, therefore, He must obey it. I can't imagine any other way to comply with the law on behalf of mankind except for through an infinite atonement to overcome the punishment required for our sins.
While I still don't believe God had no choice in the matter, I do believe the Crucifixion, to the extent of my knowledge, was the best way to bring about atonement, and allowed God to purchase our souls for a price!
I'm sorry! I didn't mean to say God created justice. Justice is a part of His nature. There was never a time when justice did not exist and he brought it into being. To contradict justice, for instance, by not allowing a soul who'd fully rejected Him to enter Hell, He'd be contradicting His nature. But if he brought some physical or otherwise created principle into being, such as energy, it would not contradict His nature to withdraw it from existence. Do you get the logic I'm following from my perspective there?
But mercy doesn't contradict justice! And I may not know exactly how God might accomplish reconciliation with the human race if He had chosen a different way to save us, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. He is infinite, after all, and knows infinitely more than I!
3 hours ago, person0 said:I believe that God will always be as merciful as He possibly can be, and will give all of His children the maximum blessing He can give them. However, He is limited by two principles that He himself established. The first and obvious one that has been discussed is the law of justice. Mercy can be extended insomuch as the law of justice is fulfilled. The Atonement of Christ fulfilled the law, therefore mercy is extended to those who follow the 'rules' established by Christ to receive/participate in His atonement. The second is that God has given mankind the ability to choose for ourselves, therefore, we are inhibited during mortality from fully enjoying His mercy in situations where we choose wrongfully and bring it upon ourselves, but also in situations where other's choose wrongfully and bring pain upon us. God does not stop those who rape and murder and lie, etc, even though they bring pain and suffering to many, because in many cases doing so would be in contradiction to the agency ('free will') he has bestowed upon us, and He cannot/will not contradict Himself. However, the Atonement of Christ, at least to the LDS paradigm, is infinitely capable to overcome this as well.
I think this is another point where our perspectives will have to diverge! If it would contradict Himself to remove something he'd established, wouldn't it be contradicting Himself to establish it in the first place? Besides, He contradicts laws He's created all the time in the Bible. The multiplication of the fish and loaves? Lazarus rising from the dead? Water becoming wine? He's not operating within His established structures there... water doesn't spontaneously switch into wine!
Concerning His mercy, in Catholicism, that's His supreme attribute, more than that, we'd say He is mercy; it's not just an element He considers like we do. He is merciful to all those who throw themselves into the care of His mercy, regardless of whether they're following the rules perfectly. His mercy extends to all His children throughout their lives. For the matter of freewill, He doesn't interfere because He's chosen to allow us to keep our freewill. He's allowing us to have it. I'd say that doesn't mean he can't take it away, He just doesn't. Anyway, that's my two cents.
3 hours ago, person0 said:My original question on this was solely to get your perspective. I agree with the above completely, and so does the Book of Mormon:
Oops, did I say something wrong?
I thought I was giving my perspective... I'm sorry about my tone if it was insulting somehow! I didn't know that was an LDS perspective, especially since I know Hell is a less prominent concept(?), so you'll have to forgive me for not recognizing you'd agree!
3 hours ago, person0 said:My opinion, and LDS doctrine agrees with this as well. Once again, I was asking only for your perspective.
I'm sorry... once again, I thought that was what I was doing! I'll try to make it clearer? Was it that my language was too descriptive? Sometimes just saying "love" seems like it may come across as an understatement, since it's such a universal word in this language (i.e. "I love this lemonade!"
). Sometimes adding descriptors helps make it more specific to what I want to get across.
I'm glad you agree; it's a wonderful doctrine to keep!
3 hours ago, person0 said:Okay, so in summation, as would be expected, we agree on some things and disagree on others. However, I do maintain that it is logical, even from the traditional Christian (non-lds) perspective to suggest that because God is unchanging, it can also be said that He cannot change. As a result He must obey any law He creates and cannot circumvent His own law. Not necessarily because of being technically incapable of doing it, but because it would cause Him to contradict Himself and to do that would be to change. Which is why I love it that the Book of Mormon prophets wrote the statement 'if so, God would cease to be God'. Of course, that would never happen, God will never cease to be God, therefore He will not change, and He will obey eternal laws, regardless of whether one believes He created them, or whether they exist co-eternally and independent.
Yes, it's not only speculation but definitive truth with the Catholic Church that God Himself does not change (His Being), so I do agree with your perspective as far as that goes! However, things He creates do not impact his Divine Nature and thus can be uncreated without issue. And, yes, we agree on some things to a degree and disagree on others... but that just means we've fulfilled the point of the thread!
I hope all that made my perspective clearer!
God bless!
-
@bytebear Thank you! Yes, I do see some parallels. Excommunicated!
Is excommunication in the LDS church not difficult to come back from? You just get re-baptized, right?
I'm still a little confused about the children, though! I don't understand how, if there is no original sin, they can have sins on their souls and not be accountable for them... It seems that's saying sin is the matter itself, exclusive from intent. Do you see what I'm getting at? So even if someone accidentally, without understanding, or without knowledge did something wrong, they would have committed a sin, which they just would be excused from? That's different from Catholicism, where if you did something without knowledge, without understanding, or accidentally, it would not be a sin. A sin is about the intent, what comes from the heart. Is that the same in LDS theology?
@Fether Thank you!
Ah, I see! That's a necessary link, then. You need to be a priesthood holder to be sealed!
@Jane_Doe Thank you! Yes, I'd agree that loving your neighbor does follow from loving God, but since it does follow, that would mean that loving God is primary. For instance, you can love your family, friends, and neighbors, but leave them if necessary to follow God. It's never moral to leave God under any circumstances. In addition, he is our Creator, our Designer, our and greatest Love. He brought me from nothing, not my parents. He died on the cross for me as an infinite sacrifice from an infinite Being, not my neighbor. That seems to show a greater allegiance and higher, distinctive sort of love due to Him. And I'd say loving God doesn't solely equal serving Him. Serving will be present, but it follows from love, it isn't love itself. In the Bible verses you quoted, loving your neighbor is listed, but it's clearly defined as secondary. Loving God is identified as the greatest commandment, as other English translations may clarify (we don't use the King James, although I think the translation in general is good
). For instance, the Douay-Rheims, translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate, reads, "This is the greatest and the first commandment" (emphasis added). Do you see what I mean? Is this not what the LDS church believes?
Yes, I see! We don't have different journeys like that in Catholicism, so that wouldn't really be something I'm used to!
Men may have the possibility of a vocation to the priesthood, but their salvation doesn't absolutely hinge on becoming a priest. Both genders have the same basic requirement: to love God with their whole heart, soul, and mind.
I think I understand what you mean here! Fether helped me with this one too.
I would completely agree! No one is barred from Christ simply because they were unable to know him.
Thank you all again for your thoughtful answers!
-
3 hours ago, person0 said:
So sorry, I have been planning to respond. Just busy with the kids. I hope to respond by the end of the day!
You’re completely fine! You were replying so quickly in the past, I didn’t know if there had been a problem. Take your time!
So the reason you don't believe justice finds its origin in God is because you've already determined it's impossible for God to be The Origin? As with the LDS scripture you quoted, maintaining the foundational bias is important to keep this ideology. I see how that works, it just makes it harder to understand when you're assuming something I'm not. 
However, I agreed with the definition. It's not that is has to be a fundamental truth, it's that it simply is, and cannot be changed.
The problem seems to be a missing step or two before statement 3. How did you get from statement 1 and statement 2 to statement 3? Thank you for explaining for me!
Yeah, the live action Speed Racer was great fun and pretty true to the original! The candy-colored motif fit perfectly.
The answer is that they are opposites to each other, but they are both congruous with perfection. Justice and mercy are two sides of the same coin. Without mercy, God could only create perfect beings, or would risk losing all of His creations, without justice, all of creation would no longer be subjected to God's rule, but would be free to act without consequence. That wouldn't work. Justice and mercy are not opposite in the sense that Good and Evil are opposite. It's kind of like a magnet, there is a positive and a negative side to the magnet. If you chop off the negative side, then half of the positive side of the magnet immediately becomes a new negative side, because the magnet cannot exist without both. Both the positive and negative charge of a magnet are good things that can be used in good and productive ways.
Is excommunication in the LDS church not difficult to come back from? You just get re-baptized, right?
Why was the Atonement of Jesus Christ Necessary?
in Christian Beliefs Board
Posted
Okay!
I understand your disagreement, but I'd propose that it's more than talking about different personalities, such as in the example of Zeus and Apollo. Zeus and Apollo are of the same nature. It's clear even just from our discussion that we're talking about very different sorts of beings.
The God you've been describing is contingent (not existence itself), and is essentially of the same nature as man.
The God I've been describing is non-contingent (existence itself), is an entirely different being than man and not made of matter in His Divine nature, composed of no parts.
If these definitions really are true, they're mutually exclusive. The name we're discussing is either truthfully attached to one or the other; it can't truly be both at once. Once the essence of a being has been redefined, it's no longer that being. For instance, if I you had a friend named Sarah, and I claimed to know Sarah too, but described, for instance, a plant, even though I'd used Sarah's name, I wouldn't really be talking about her.
(By saying they're different gods, of course I'm not proposing that there are actually two who are existing at the same time; I'm only saying that one is an entirely different concept than the other!)
I think that again takes us to our fundamental divergence in our concepts of God! I believe justice manifests in human reason, and you believe that God has the same nature, and so naturally he must have a human reason as well, where justice manifests. I differ in that I am defining the origin of justice, not stopping at its manifestation inside a created being. God is the origin of Justice, and so it does not merely manifest within Him, but is a part of Him.
Thank you!
That's still a definition, though! I'm looking for more of answer to the "why" part, not just the identity of something. For instance, if you asked me why human beings experience hope, something I might say is that it's because we have both a physical and spiritual nature, the spiritual nature being able to comprehend non-physical realities such as hope via reason and intellect. That's more of what I'm pressing for when I ask "why are there fundamental truths"!
I see!
On that point, I might just press that I would perceive commanding nature to do something other than what it is able to do naturally is, inherently, unnatural. What would you say to someone who asked what natural forces would be leveraged to walk through walls? To know what is in someone's mind? To forgive sin?
Even moving molecules, like you mentioned before, would require a supernatural movement, since molecules don't just rearrange themselves into entirely different objects in the natural world.
Yes, to me God is supernatural, and He can work within nature or outside of it, not being dependent on nature, His creation, which is entirely subject to Him in every way.
Yes, that's true! I never said mercy would cause injustice. Unless I've messed up somewhere, my stance was that mercy and justice aren't opposites, so mercy can be enacted without causing injustice, etc. There are also might be multiple definitions of justice I've been using at once, I believe, which is confusing. There's one definition of justice which is just-deserts (he hit me so I hit him) and there's another justice that is what is owed to something in its nature (it is just for God to be Merciful, since that is His right).
I've also mixed up guilt and debt, including them in one package. The debt always must be paid, through penance, indulgences, other people, etc. The guilt, to the extent of my knowledge, can be removed. Thus Adam and Eve were forgiven their guilt and were not sent to Hell, but had to wait for the debt until Paradise had been opened.
I don't know if that was really helpful, but this is talking about God's Nature, something that I don't fully understand! I apologize if I've erred at all in what I've said on that account!
I think the point I was probably trying to make is that we don't really merit anything, and that everything we gain is given to us by God. I wouldn't say by the same experience (exterior encounters) they'd gain the same outcome, but if you combine it with the same decisions (interior realities), then probably! A person is a very complex thing though, so I wouldn't feel confident in that answer unless they were exactly the same in every way. Which would mean they are the same person!
Although not completely to the point, I'd like to clear up my concept of God's being "unchanging"! I do believe He is unchanging in His nature, and I do believe if He promises something, He will keep that promise, by I do not believe that there is no "superficial" change! For instance, He can change his decisions (such as saying He'd destroy Nineveh, and then deciding not to).
I can't say that I agree that that version of justice is good. A "vile criminal" may have done something terrible, but he's still a human being. The "justice" on this earth is not the ultimate justice; only God can give that. Mercy is much more important. Punishment exists in our legal system to train individuals not to repeat a bad behavior and to dissuade the general populace from following that same path. It's not about exacting revenge. If the people facilitating the punishment are attempting to inflict pain for retribution, that's hateful and has become sinful. For instance, I'd say capital punishment is wrong where it can be avoided, even if the perpetrator committed murder. Eye-for-an-eye justice would demand that that criminal be executed, so as to match his crimes. But that's not the way of mercy. Unless the criminal can't be contained and is dangerous to others, the proper action is to contain him, giving him the natural life God has given him in the hopes that the soul will choose to return to God's love.
The interactions of God's justice and mercy are highly conceptual and far above my study so far (I'm wading in too deep here!), but I do know that in Catholicism, His Mercy is His greatest attribute. How does justice play in there? I could speculate, but I'm afraid of falling into too many errors and I don't want to simply be confusing. In what He did during the Redemption, justice clearly plays a role, but as to what He could have done, I can't say for sure!
It may just have been because of your word choice! Since you said he'd choose mercy and justice, that intimates that there was a point in time where he decided to declare himself merciful and just, which would mean that there was a time (the time before) where he was not merciful and just. And if He was at one point not intrinsically merciful and just, and then at another point was intrinsically merciful and just, he would have changed. That's all I was asking about!
I'm not very well versed in this area, so excuse me if I make mistakes! I'd cautiously say that God is mercy and mercy is His greatest attribute. Although justice is part of Him as well and is always involved, as far as I know, Mercy is greater.
I don't know if there's an issue in what I've said about mercy and justice, but insofar as there being no logical reason why He should not grant unlimited mercy, I'd say there is one: His Will. He has made His mercy contingent on repentance and love. He doesn't want to indiscriminately dispense mercy. (As a side note, to be separated from God is to be in pain! That's how He's made it. We're are ordered towards Love, and to reject Him is to fall into agony. I know of the tradition in Catholicism, that the "flames" of Hell are a mercy to distract from the true pain of knowing you'd divorced yourself from ever being with God.)
He has set up the way to gain mercy: to repent and to love Him. That's His choice, which is the opposite of "respecting" persons. The main reason to trust Him is because of His infallible, inexhaustible love. He's not some strange chaotic being that is sometimes hateful, sometimes loving. He is always loving and never hateful. The way to forgiven is to trust Him, the way to not be is to not trust Him. That's not very unpredictable. And since He's so merciful, really the scales are weighted in your favor. He desires that everyone chooses to come to Him and will help you along the way!