The Godhead

[Dr T]

This is why we cite the proof that Christ has a resurrected, glorified, perfected body. He went from a mortal state on earth to an immortal state and was given all that the Father hath. Call it what you want, but that is exalted. That is the issue you need to argue agaist, not any interpretation. Your view is but an interpretation also, but you have no proof God does NOT have a physical body. I offer the evidence that His perfect Son was resurrected and now has a body and that He is like His Father.

Thanks Justice. :) Christ does have a resurrected body. He was crucified, died, and was buried and then on the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures. I have no problem with that issue. I will not call it exaltation but a fulfillment of his dominance over death. He concurred it for good! All praises to God. As far as the "The Father has a body" that you keep pushing and saying that I need to read the Bible and you were questioning my own reading of scripture, well it's clear to me that He is spirit (see John 4:24). Wait, what does the Bible say there? Does it say, “He has a body just like you and me”? No, it says, He is spirit.

The logic that the Father has a body is pretty strong there. All you have is an interpretation that the Father doesn't need one to be perfect because He is "different."

Why? Because it talks about His right hand? I've said this time and again, that is athropomorphic but He is spirit.

It's in the Bible for all to see. You don't have to go to my church to hear it taught. You just have to open your Bible and read.

I have Justice, I have. I can say that same to you and ask that you read all of what it says without your spin on what you have been tought that it "is really saying" and then come back and talk to me. Thanks.

[Dr T]

As far as God bringing anything into existence from nothing, show me one verse in the Bible that says "God brought everything into existence from nothing."

Show me one verse that says "Eternal progression really exists and is not an LDS concept" sir. You can't You can't even produce that in your BOM. I know we can probably do this all night long but I'm really not here to argue and make each other look or feel silly. I'm just talking about what the Bible really talks about this issue and if you want to look into it your self, be my guest. I will never convince you or make you change your mind about anything you've been taught in your church. That's between you and God not me. Thanks.

In fact, it says it took God 6 days to "create" the heaven and earth. If He spoke it into existence from nothing, why did it then take Him 6 days to "create" it? How long does it take to say "Let there be light?" Or, are you saying He has the power to speak it into existence, but only in unorganized elements?

Yes, it does say that Justice. I agree. I wan't there, I don't know the inner workings of creation but you are talking about it like you do. What was it like to see that?

No, the Creator, in the beginning, showed the same characteristics He did when He was born among us. He spoke and wind and sea obeyed Him. In the beginning God spoke and the elements obeyed. They existed, but were unorgainzed. He spoke and they organized.

Wait, I thought you were strict on showing you from the Bible exactly what is said about things? (Obviously you did not mean that) Cause if you did I'd ask you to show me where the Bible says specifically that they were unorganized and after He spoke they became organized. Are you getting that from the "The Earth was formless" and a void. I want to know how you get to the idea that God is unable to create things. Thanks.

[Dr T]

Hello Traveler. This is fun to think about. Thanks for this discussion.

It also appears to me that you think that G-d is our “eternal” G-d. This makes sense only if G-d was our G-d before creation and the only way that could be true is if something of us existed for which G-d was G-d before the creation of man as described in Genesis. This misunderstanding of this principle has been the source of great traditional Christian discussions concerning free will verses determinism. The problem is that if nothing of us existed prior to G-d’s creation then he alone is the cause of what we do and who we are – therefore we have no say but to be what G-d alone has created and there is no free will. This also makes G-d a grand hypocrite and perpetrator of injustice because we are punished for sins that we cannot avoid and that he only is the source of.

Interesting idea there sir. So you're saying that we have to hold that there is a pre-existence that God was God over for Him to be God? I'm not sure so I'm asking for clarification on that please. I'd say that yes, that is correct, nothing but God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, were eternally present and therefore existant. For you to jump to the idea that we'd have to jump to the concept that there is no free will because of how He made us, that does not follow in my mind at all. If you were to say that He created us to only do good (not sin) then that is not truely free, since we'd be unable to not sin. Do you see what I'm saying there? If, on the other hand, He created us to only sin, then again, there is no other option for us to chose or we'd always sin unless there is another option. Hmmm...I wonder if that is what the Holy Spirit did for us, by calling us, moving in our lives, showing us that we are sinful/have sinned, and in need of salvation, the the savation decision on our part, then the "behold all things are new" idea and then our sanctification.

The only way around this dilemma is if G-d is not the source of evil. And the only way that such a thing is possible is if evil had place among us before G-d had hand in creating us and that in creating us he allowed that evil among us to remain by our choice alone – not his; but if the essence of that choice did not exist before the creation of man then it was by him that such a thing became part of us in the creation; thereby making him the actual and only source of evil within us. Therefore it would be unjust that G-d damn man for what he alone is responsible for and the source of.

Ok, I'm sorry but I didn't quite get that and would like you to try to tell me again, maybe in a different way, so I'm sure I understand what you are saying there. The reason I'm confused is because of the concept that evil cannot come from God yet your argument actually said the opposite.

And so it is not so much the concept of the Trinity – in and of itself; it is all the baggage, contradictions with scripture that can only be explained by irrational arguments that define G-d and his children in ways that cannot be applied to reality. And in the end there is no benefit and nothing enlightening by which G-d accomplishes his (by his own admission) greatest achievement. When all is said and done concerning the Trinity – I am left with the distinct feeling that G-d in all his wisdom and glory could have done much better. An so I have come to understand – That he has – and it is as true as light overcoming darkness; that with G-d all things are possible – the only limit a those that we bring and that we insist on.

Thank you for that Traveler. I thought a little about this issue, I don't know, maybe about two years ago when I was knocking my thoughts around with the thoughts of God, creation, and our purpose on Earth. I came to the conclusion, as I've said before, that God is limited. I've said that and it makes many people (well Christians) uncomfortable, and it has nothing to do with a drawback but more so of an explanation really. God cannot sin. He cannot sin becaues it is not in His nature. To say that makes Him weaker is nonsense. To say, "He can only not sin because He said He will not" does not hold water for me. It is because He is unable-it goes against His being. He has to be who He is. I came down to the thought that "If I say, 'He could have done it better'" the that would be presumptous. Really, think about that. For us to say that God didn't do it right, or it could have been better, that shows that we think He erred, and I can't see God making a mistake. I now hold that God made the world the best world possible. I forgot to say that I was also thinking about the problem of evil back then a lot too and had to really dig deep with my thought process of it, knowing what I know if Him (and my feeble mind), who He is, what He has done for us and that He worked it all out to His own ends. Traveler, thanks again for this talk. I look forward to hearing more from you. Thanks

[Justice]

As far as the "The Father has a body" that you keep pushing and saying that I need to read the Bible and you were questioning my own reading of scripture, well it's clear to me that He is spirit (see John 4:24). Wait, what does the Bible say there? Does it say, “He has a body just like you and me”? No, it says, He is spirit.

I never said He wasn't spirit. All I said was that He has a body of flesh and bones.

Christ was *just* a spirit before He was born. When He was born on earth He took upon Himself flesh also. Why is it so hard to see the pattern?

When we die our bodies go to the grave until the resurrection. Our spirits live on and return to God who gave them life. We are dual nature beings. We have both a spirit and a physical body.

Christ, in that regard, is just like us, a dual natured being. The evidence is all there to suggest the Father is a dual nature being as well. He has used all these things to teach us about Him.

Were we not made in His image and likeness?

So, by saying God is only a spirit, you have interpreted that verse to fit your belief, and have ignored all the evidence He has given us.

[Justice]

I'm not really focusing on "eternal progression," although I don't know what eternal life would be if it did not mean eternal progression. I was asking why it took the Creator 6 days or "time periods" to create the heaven and earth if He willed everything into existence from nothing. It's a simple question. I hoped you would have a simple answer.

To me, the very fact that it took Him 6 days to create the heaven and earth is proof that He did not will everything into existence from nothing. I realize that is not the only way to understand it. You have not answered this point with anything other than "it's just what I believe." If that's all you have I can't fault you.

Yes, it does say that Justice. I agree. I wan't there, I don't know the inner workings of creation but you are talking about it like you do. What was it like to see that?

We don't have to be there in order to receive revealtion on what happened. Also, remember according to my view I get much of my information from a prophet who spoke with the Creator on many instances. We have additional scripture from Moses and Abraham who also spoke with Him. All of this revelation guides my thinking. So, you cannot argue my understanding unless you argue against these other books of scripture. You have to prove our books of Moses and Abraham wrong.

Wait, I thought you were strict on showing you from the Bible exactly what is said about things? (Obviously you did not mean that) Cause if you did I'd ask you to show me where the Bible says specifically that they were unorganized and after He spoke they became organized. Are you getting that from the "The Earth was formless" and a void. I want to know how you get to the idea that God is unable to create things.

You're twisting my words. Show me where I said God is unable to create things. I said, as scripture does, that it took Him 6 days to create the heaven and earth. To me, that means it happened over periods of time; in stages. Had He willed everything into existence from nothing, it wouldn't have taken 6 days, 6 hours, or even 6 seconds. I just asked for how you expalin that. You'd be surprised how many people with your view never even consider that question. I was wondering if you had.

It's all in the interpretation of the words.

All I was trying to point out was that your belief in the words that describe the creation are not as cut and dry as you think they are. You accuse me (us) of having a false understanding simply because it isn't the same as the way you have been taught. When, in fact, your beliefs can't be definitively supported in the text either. If they can be, then I'm just asking that you show me. That's all I was trying to do. When people come to realize there is more than one way to understand the words, they become more friendly toward those who believe different.

Just because more people believe the way you do doesn't make it true. Truth will never be decided by a popular opinion pole. Men have believed many false things over the years in mass. It didn't make them true. Men in general used to believe the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. Men in general also used to beleive the world was flat. So to argue "God brought everything into existence from nothing" simply because it is the more popular opinion, doesn't prove anything (I'm not sure that's what you're doing, but others have).

In fact, I have shown within the words themselves that it may not be true. It is a fact we both agree with that it took 6 days (or time periods) from God to create the heaven and earth. I thought we could build from there. I asked for your explanation of this, and you had none, or you didn't give one. That's the only point I wanted to make... not that I think any less of you for believing it. I value your opinion, as I value you. I just disagree with it. In all my studies, prayers, and what I believe are revelations I've received over this matter, I reached a different conclusion than you. I realize I can't open a Bible, or even (as you say) a Book of Mormon or Pearl of Great Price and show you something that will prove your view wrong. That is not my intention. I only wish to reach an understanding that the text can be read and understood the way I view it also. I know all too well that your view can be read in the words.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Justice

[Justice]

I asked a question earlier that no one answered. I asked if God is alone.

I know He created us, and there's the angels, and who knows what else out there...

But, what I mean, of His Kind; of His Race or Species.

Is He alone?

If so, where did male and female come from? Is it just something He devised?

He said He made man in His image... male and female. I was wondering how you viewed this.

[Dr T]

I never said He wasn't spirit. All I said was that He has a body of flesh and bones.

Christ was *just* a spirit before He was born. When He was born on earth He took upon Himself flesh also. Why is it so hard to see the pattern?

When we die our bodies go to the grave until the resurrection. Our spirits live on and return to God who gave them life. We are dual nature beings. We have both a spirit and a physical body.

Christ, in that regard, is just like us, a dual natured being. The evidence is all there to suggest the Father is a dual nature being as well. He has used all these things to teach us about Him.

Were we not made in His image and likeness?

So, by saying God is only a spirit, you have interpreted that verse to fit your belief, and have ignored all the evidence He has given us.

Why is it hard to see that? Because there is nothing else to support your interpretation and you have "other information" that you've been fed Justice.

[Dr T]

I'm not really focusing on "eternal progression," although I don't know what eternal life would be if it did not mean eternal progression. I was asking why it took the Creator 6 days or "time periods" to create the heaven and earth if He willed everything into existence from nothing. It's a simple question. I hoped you would have a simple answer.

To me, the very fact that it took Him 6 days to create the heaven and earth is proof that He did not will everything into existence from nothing. I realize that is not the only way to understand it. You have not answered this point with anything other than "it's just what I believe." If that's all you have I can't fault you.

We don't have to be there in order to receive revealtion on what happened. Also, remember according to my view I get much of my information from a prophet who spoke with the Creator on many instances. We have additional scripture from Moses and Abraham who also spoke with Him. All of this revelation guides my thinking. So, you cannot argue my understanding unless you argue against these other books of scripture. You have to prove our books of Moses and Abraham wrong.

You're twisting my words. Show me where I said God is unable to create things. I said, as scripture does, that it took Him 6 days to create the heaven and earth. To me, that means it happened over periods of time; in stages. Had He willed everything into existence from nothing, it wouldn't have taken 6 days, 6 hours, or even 6 seconds. I just asked for how you expalin that. You'd be surprised how many people with your view never even consider that question. I was wondering if you had.

It's all in the interpretation of the words.

All I was trying to point out was that your belief in the words that describe the creation are not as cut and dry as you think they are. You accuse me (us) of having a false understanding simply because it isn't the same as the way you have been taught. When, in fact, your beliefs can't be definitively supported in the text either. If they can be, then I'm just asking that you show me. That's all I was trying to do. When people come to realize there is more than one way to understand the words, they become more friendly toward those who believe different.

Just because more people believe the way you do doesn't make it true. Truth will never be decided by a popular opinion pole. Men have believed many false things over the years in mass. It didn't make them true. Men in general used to believe the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. Men in general also used to beleive the world was flat. So to argue "God brought everything into existence from nothing" simply because it is the more popular opinion, doesn't prove anything (I'm not sure that's what you're doing, but others have).

In fact, I have shown within the words themselves that it may not be true. It is a fact we both agree with that it took 6 days (or time periods) from God to create the heaven and earth. I thought we could build from there. I asked for your explanation of this, and you had none, or you didn't give one. That's the only point I wanted to make... not that I think any less of you for believing it. I value your opinion, as I value you. I just disagree with it. In all my studies, prayers, and what I believe are revelations I've received over this matter, I reached a different conclusion than you. I realize I can't open a Bible, or even (as you say) a Book of Mormon or Pearl of Great Price and show you something that will prove your view wrong. That is not my intention. I only wish to reach an understanding that the text can be read and understood the way I view it also. I know all too well that your view can be read in the words.

I see that God spoke it into existence Justice. The eternal progression things was just an example of staying consistent with your claims-that's all. "Interpretation of the words", like I said before to you is in the process of reading that none of use can avoid. We can avoid doing it well but we can not avoid it. Mine is based on my reading and understanding from what is there, not added to it in the case of Creation sir.

[Dr T]

I asked a question earlier that no one answered. I asked if God is alone.

I know He created us, and there's the angels, and who knows what else out there...

But, what I mean, of His Kind; of His Race or Species.

Is He alone?

If so, where did male and female come from? Is it just something He devised?

He said He made man in His image... male and female. I was wondering how you viewed this.

Nope, I say God is the only God. There are no other such as a species of other Gods at all. He says "I know of know others" and of course you have to "interpret" that as "any other god that we worship" but it's not like that.

[Snow]

Along with these verses, I highlighted all the verses in the NT that indicate Jesus and God the Father are separate people.

Guess how many verses I found in total? Over 200....

Nearly every time Jesus speaks he defers to someone he calls Father. Never does he take credit for what he does, something the trinitarian god could do with impunity, since they're all the same person, right? So why does Jesus always give credit to some other person he constantly calls his Father?

To me it is as clear as the fingers on my right hand that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate people. It is plainly laid out in the NT for all to see.

Add to that the fact that Jesus told the Apostles that he would send the Holy Ghost in his absence, and that after they had recieved this comforter, they could see Jesus again as another comforter... If they're all the same person, then this whole arrangement is totally meaningless and overwrought...why would any god bother with such claptrap??

The most intriguing thing about all of this is that the strongest witness against the trinity is found in the Bible itself, yet far too many choose not to see it...

Not sure what your point is. Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are 3 individual persons.

What is your point?

[Snow]

that is confusing. Which is it? Three beings or one being? Three personages or one personage? the above contains conflicing statements - it is either one or the other, you can't have a square circle - it is either a square or a cirlce, one or the other, cannot be both. So which is it

Confused?

We Mormons believe that there is one God: ...And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen. (Book of Mormon - Introduction Preface:11)

[Snow]

It is not possible to have both free will and live without the choice of evil. either

a.) we have free will in which case good and evil exist

or

b.) we do not have free will in which case good and evil do not exist.

one or the other, cannot have both.

Are you just making that up?

Free will is simply the ability to choose. Whether or not the choices are good and/or evil is another matter.

one personage or three personages - one or the other, cannot have it both ways.

Some things are impossible, illogical, nonsensical.

the "mystery" of the trinity. There is a reason people do not understand it, think it a mystery. It is because it is nonsensical, illogical, contradictory, impossible. Sorry.

Some people think they are being smart "I can understand it while you cannot". Often the smarter of the two people is the one who does not understand it, the one who recognizes that the concept is nonsenical.

Maybe the reason that it is a mystery is because you are do distorting the representation of the trinity that it loses meaning.

[Traveler]

Hello Traveler. This is fun to think about. Thanks for this discussion.

Interesting idea there sir. So you're saying that we have to hold that there is a pre-existence that God was God over for Him to be God? I'm not sure so I'm asking for clarification on that please. I'd say that yes, that is correct, nothing but God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, were eternally present and therefore existant. For you to jump to the idea that we'd have to jump to the concept that there is no free will because of how He made us, that does not follow in my mind at all. If you were to say that He created us to only do good (not sin) then that is not truely free, since we'd be unable to not sin. Do you see what I'm saying there? If, on the other hand, He created us to only sin, then again, there is no other option for us to chose or we'd always sin unless there is another option. Hmmm...I wonder if that is what the Holy Spirit did for us, by calling us, moving in our lives, showing us that we are sinful/have sinned, and in need of salvation, the the savation decision on our part, then the "behold all things are new" idea and then our sanctification.

Ok, I'm sorry but I didn't quite get that and would like you to try to tell me again, maybe in a different way, so I'm sure I understand what you are saying there. The reason I'm confused is because of the concept that evil cannot come from God yet your argument actually said the opposite.

Thank you for that Traveler. I thought a little about this issue, I don't know, maybe about two years ago when I was knocking my thoughts around with the thoughts of God, creation, and our purpose on Earth. I came to the conclusion, as I've said before, that God is limited. I've said that and it makes many people (well Christians) uncomfortable, and it has nothing to do with a drawback but more so of an explanation really. God cannot sin. He cannot sin becaues it is not in His nature. To say that makes Him weaker is nonsense. To say, "He can only not sin because He said He will not" does not hold water for me. It is because He is unable-it goes against His being. He has to be who He is. I came down to the thought that "If I say, 'He could have done it better'" the that would be presumptous. Really, think about that. For us to say that God didn't do it right, or it could have been better, that shows that we think He erred, and I can't see God making a mistake. I now hold that God made the world the best world possible. I forgot to say that I was also thinking about the problem of evil back then a lot too and had to really dig deep with my thought process of it, knowing what I know if Him (and my feeble mind), who He is, what He has done for us and that He worked it all out to His own ends. Traveler, thanks again for this talk. I look forward to hearing more from you. Thanks

When we say that G-d is an eternal presents or that he is eternal then for everything we define as G-d must also have an eternal presents and be eternal; otherwise that which defines G-d, that is not eternal, would mean that G-d would be lacking that part of his being and character until that part also existed. Let me give a few examples. If we say that creation defines G-d then until there is something created there would be no G-d and therefore G-d could not be eternal. If we define G-d as loving and compassionate then until something exist or is created for which love and compassion could actually take place then a loving and compassionate G-d could not really exist. Again a loving and compassionate eternal G-d could not exist. If we say that G-d is all knowing then until all possibilities existed that could be known there could not exist that which knows it. To know something that does not exist is a false knowledge.

I believe you are right to think that G-d is defined by the laws that govern. Although you call this definition limits; I prefer to think of this in terms as tools and methods. Instead of G-d being limited by eternal laws and being subject to them; I think of G-d as a master of eternal laws that he uses to bring order to his works and accomplish his ends.

Concerning G-d’s creation and what must exist prior to that which G-d has part – I have thought much about this. If, as you suggested, nothing existed prior to G-d creating it then it is created exactly as G-d created it for G-d is the only source and therefore that which is responsible for having done that creation. Some to sin more than others but what bothers me most is any possibility that G-d created and as the only source created one to believe in him and one to be skeptical. To the believer he gives great rewards of heaven and to the skeptic he damns forever. If G-d is the only source of one being skeptical and one being a believer then he alone is responsible for what he alone created and did when what he started has run full cycle and completes or finishes what it was set out or created to do. The only way that there could be something other than G-d responsible is if something other than G-d was a source and contributed to a specific creation. If you have any other possible way of understanding this – I would very much like to explorer that possible – because I have not been able to conceive of such a thing.

What I believe to be important is very much connected to your idea about G-d’s limits. That is that everything that we believe about G-d has some consequence because of that belief. If we believe G-d to be loving and kind then our G-d that we worship within our religious structure and doctrine, must be loving and kind or we have been caught in a lie. Ether we have been deceived into believing in a false G-d that in some way or at some point is not loving and kind or we have been deceived into believing that the actual G-d is loving and kind when in reality he is not or has not always been. So if we say that G-d is eternally loving and kind then we must believe that something other than G-d also eternally exists to which G-d has always been loving and kind. If we believe G-d to be eternal then we cannot say that his loving and kindness is also eternal unless there is something other than G-d that exists in eternity to which G-d loves and is kind. Loving something that does not exist is a type of false love.

You are very correct about your concern that many find such discussions as this extremely uncomfortable. But I believe – as I think you do as well – those that have a real and personal relationship to G-d are not so uncomfortable about discussing aspects of G-d and what in reality those aspects play in the eternal scheme of things. Also, I would like you to know that even though we may disagree on points – I hold your opinion in high regard. Especially and because it draws me closer to him in order to understand how it is that you view such an important subject from a different perspective.

The Traveler

[Justice]

Why is it hard to see that? Because there is nothing else to support your interpretation and you have "other information" that you've been fed Justice.

Nothing other than Christ was a dual natured being and He is like the Father?

Nothing other than we are dual natured beings and we are made in His likeness and image?

Are you reading my posts?

You just keep saying there is nothing to support my opinion, yet you seem to ignore the greatest evidence there is.

While, I see nothing as evidence that God is not a dual natured being. I explained directly the answer to that scripture you posted. So far, you haven;'t directly answered any of the evidence I have presented.

[Justice]

I see that God spoke it into existence Justice. The eternal progression things was just an example of staying consistent with your claims-that's all. "Interpretation of the words", like I said before to you is in the process of reading that none of use can avoid. We can avoid doing it well but we can not avoid it. Mine is based on my reading and understanding from what is there, not added to it in the case of Creation sir.

I quoted the Bible. It says God took 6 days to create the heaven and earth. That alone is evidence, isn't it? I have claimed that it could not have taken 6 days to will things into existence from nothing.

Genesis 1 describes a process that happened over time. How does this mesh with the view that He brought everything into existence from nothing? That's all I'm asking. Either you have an answer or you don't.

[Justice]

Nope, I say God is the only God. There are no other such as a species of other Gods at all. He says "I know of know others" and of course you have to "interpret" that as "any other god that we worship" but it's not like that.

I don't interpret it as "any other god that we worship," because we only worship One God. That is the God that created us, and gives us life and breath each day. We are not accountable to any other being. I promise you that is in keeping with the words of the Bible.

Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Whether there are other beings out there like Him or like the Father has no bearing on our salvation and who we worship.

OK, now we're getting somewhere, You say there is no other of His kind.

To me, that beggs some questions. Is He male or is He both male and female? Or, neither? If neither, where did He get the idea from to make man male and female? Aren't we made in His image?

Well, He calls Himself our Father in Heaven. To me, that means He's male. Also, to me, you can't have male without female.

BTW: to say God is the one and only true God, and there be other Gods is not an inconsistency. It's like saying, I am the one and only father of my children. That does not mean there can't be other fathers out there. Also, it is not blasphemy to believe there are other beings like Him, only if we worship any of them instead of Him. If we worship the God that created us, that is fulfilling the command to worship Him and only Him.

He is the one true God because He is our creator, or Father. He is our only way to salvation.

I realize you disagree. I realize you may always disagree. All I'm doing is pointing out that this view is a way of interpreting the words of the Bible as well. If you think the words cannot be understood this way, then you need to show me how they cannot.

[Dr T]

Hello Traveler, I'm going to respond in red within your last post.

When we say that G-d is an eternal presents or that he is eternal then for everything we define as G-d must also have an eternal presents and be eternal; otherwise that which defines G-d, that is not eternal, would mean that G-d would be lacking that part of his being and character until that part also existed. Let me give a few examples. If we say that creation defines G-d then until there is something created there would be no G-d and therefore G-d could not be eternal. If we define G-d as loving and compassionate then until something exist or is created for which love and compassion could actually take place then a loving and compassionate G-d could not really exist. I have to say that I view God as being able to be outside of created time. I think He is able to come into time as Jesus did. I think that God is love (1 Jn. 4:8). I wonder what that actually mean? God is love. Is that in reference how He always behaves? Does it refer to His interaction/behavior with others only or is it present even without a relationship Again a loving and compassionate eternal G-d could not exist. If we say that G-d is all knowing then until all possibilities existed that could be known there could not exist that which knows it. To know something that does not exist is a false knowledge. Interesting idea there. There is something known as open theology. That basically holds that there is no knowledge of future events and God is still learning too. I don't know much about it and have not looked into it at all so I can't really give my opinion on it beyond my first brush impulse to say that God is outside of our time and can see it all in the present so it is not a learning. I'd also say that forknowledge does not mean that God forces us to do something (but I'd have to give that more thought).

I believe you are right to think that G-d is defined by the laws that govern. Although you call this definition limits; I prefer to think of this in terms as tools and methods. Instead of G-d being limited by eternal laws and being subject to them; I think of G-d as a master of eternal laws that he uses to bring order to his works and accomplish his ends. I do believe that God is bound to His nature and can not go outside that nature. I think He can, and has, been able to change laws though such as the law of nature, or what I call supernaturally acting. I have a problem with saying He is outside of logic though and think just calling it being "superlogical" or something like that does not see like a good answer to me. I'll have to think much more on that though.

Concerning G-d’s creation and what must exist prior to that which G-d has part – I have thought much about this. If, as you suggested, nothing existed prior to G-d creating it then it is created exactly as G-d created it for G-d is the only source and therefore that which is responsible for having done that creation. Some to sin more than others but what bothers me most is any possibility that G-d created and as the only source created one to believe in him and one to be skeptical. To the believer he gives great rewards of heaven and to the skeptic he damns forever. If G-d is the only source of one being skeptical and one being a believer then he alone is responsible for what he alone created and did when what he started has run full cycle and completes or finishes what it was set out or created to do. The only way that there could be something other than G-d responsible is if something other than G-d was a source and contributed to a specific creation. If you have any other possible way of understanding this – I would very much like to explorer that possible – because I have not been able to conceive of such a thing. I do not think, beyond God, there was anything else invovled in creation. Since I view God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each being present and eternal and I do not think they needed anything else, I think they were there. As far as sin is concerned in creation I think it was God's allowing us to make our own choices and therefore allowing us to wander away from His desire and I see that as sin. My wife and I created our children. When they sin, I do not look at myself and say, "I made him so I caused him to sin."

What I believe to be important is very much connected to your idea about G-d’s limits. That is that everything that we believe about G-d has some consequence because of that belief. If we believe G-d to be loving and kind then our G-d that we worship within our religious structure and doctrine, must be loving and kind or we have been caught in a lie. Ether we have been deceived into believing in a false G-d that in some way or at some point is not loving and kind or we have been deceived into believing that the actual G-d is loving and kind when in reality he is not or has not always been. So if we say that G-d is eternally loving and kind then we must believe that something other than G-d also eternally exists to which G-d has always been loving and kind. If we believe G-d to be eternal then we cannot say that his loving and kindness is also eternal unless there is something other than G-d that exists in eternity to which G-d loves and is kind. Loving something that does not exist is a type of false love. That seems to be a good thought. I really do need to think about the attributes that I've given to the way I view God more and know that I have a lot to learn still.

You are very correct about your concern that many find such discussions as this extremely uncomfortable. But I believe – as I think you do as well – those that have a real and personal relationship to G-d are not so uncomfortable about discussing aspects of G-d and what in reality those aspects play in the eternal scheme of things. Also, I would like you to know that even though we may disagree on points – I hold your opinion in high regard. Especially and because it draws me closer to him in order to understand how it is that you view such an important subject from a different perspective. Thank you Traveler, I appreciate that and have really enjoyed this little talk. It makes me see that I am still a beginner and need to fill in my thought holes about God where I can.

[Traveler]

Hello Traveler, I'm going to respond in red within your last post.

......

I do not think, beyond God, there was anything else invovled in creation. Since I view God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each being present and eternal and I do not think they needed anything else, I think they were there. As far as sin is concerned in creation I think it was God's allowing us to make our own choices and therefore allowing us to wander away from His desire and I see that as sin. My wife and I created our children. When they sin, I do not look at myself and say, "I made him so I caused him to sin."

Most parents have had the same experience that I have had with our children. That is that each child is born with their unique personality. There are many discussions concerning if children are products of heredity or environment. LDS doctrine – which I believe is that each child, comes to us from spirits living with G-d in heaven. They come with pre-dispositions that are neither heredity nor environment. They are unique individuals that in essence are eternal spiritual beings seeking a physical mortal experience. We are children of a Father in heaven that loves us but is willing to allow us to have a temporary physical experience.

We are not physical beings seeking something spiritual. Coming to G-d is not something new but a return to our home and roots. We are all prodigal sons asking our Father to have us back. Thus my handle – The Traveler. I am the Traveler far from home – lost – looking for my way back. Helping others on my way – The way home.

Thank you for walking with The Traveler.

[Dr T]

Thank you. I really like that handle of yours. I did not know that is where you got it sir. I really like it. :) Thanks again.

[Dr T]

I quoted the Bible. It says God took 6 days to create the heaven and earth. That alone is evidence, isn't it? I have claimed that it could not have taken 6 days to will things into existence from nothing.

Genesis 1 describes a process that happened over time. How does this mesh with the view that He brought everything into existence from nothing? That's all I'm asking. Either you have an answer or you don't.

Hi Justice. Yes, Gen. 1 does lay it out. I'm not seeing how it does not mesh with how God created the world in 6 days personally. I see that you do not seem to like it and think it ought to have been done more quickly but like I said, I wasn't there and do not know the inner working of what went into there beyong, God said, "let there be light and there was light" etc.

[Dr T]

I don't interpret it as "any other god that we worship," because we only worship One God. That is the God that created us, and gives us life and breath each day. We are not accountable to any other being. I promise you that is in keeping with the words of the Bible. I understand that those were my words and they came from many people here that I've talked to that almost unanimously say, "One God that we have anything to do with" as their response.

Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Whether there are other beings out there like Him or like the Father has no bearing on our salvation and who we worship.

OK, now we're getting somewhere, You say there is no other of His kind.

To me, that beggs some questions. Is He male or is He both male and female? Or, neither? If neither, where did He get the idea from to make man male and female? Aren't we made in His image? Yes, we are created in God's image. What do you take that to mean?

Well, He calls Himself our Father in Heaven. To me, that means He's male. Also, to me, you can't have male without female. You can't have male without female? Do u mean about the two make more or are u talking about something else? We see initially, there was Adam and not helper, Eve. He looked at all the animals and then female was created. There was a time on Earth that there was only male.

BTW: to say God is the one and only true God, and there be other Gods is not an inconsistency. It's like saying, I am the one and only father of my children. That does not mean there can't be other fathers out there. Also, it is not blasphemy to believe there are other beings like Him, only if we worship any of them instead of Him. If we worship the God that created us, that is fulfilling the command to worship Him and only Him. I base that on my view that everywhere else in the Bible that talks about other gods they are always false gods and not a God. Again, God said, "I know no others" that is clear to me. He does not know another god, not another god at all, not one that created Him as you believe etc. on and on ad infinitum as has been taught in your church.

He is the one true God because He is our creator, or Father. He is our only way to salvation. Amen, He is our creator and our only way to salvation.

I realize you disagree. I realize you may always disagree. All I'm doing is pointing out that this view is a way of interpreting the words of the Bible as well. If you think the words cannot be understood this way, then you need to show me how they cannot.

You don't know if I've always disgreed with it or not since we've never spoken. Christianity is relatively new to me as I said, I'm still learning and have a lot to learn but have been speaking from what I have learned through my own reading and prayer. Yes, we do disagree. Thanks

[Traveler]

........

To me, that beggs some questions. Is He male or is He both male and female? Or, neither? If neither, where did He get the idea from to make man male and female? Aren't we made in His image?

..........

Genesis 1:27 implies that male and female are indeed included in the essence that defines G-d.

Now look at Genesis 7:15 " And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life".

It would appear that the "breath of life" is related to the binary relationship of male and female and is divine in origin or as spoken in scripture and part of the “image and likeness” of G-d included in the creation of mankind.

The Traveler

[Justice]

Hi Justice. Yes, Gen. 1 does lay it out. I'm not seeing how it does not mesh with how God created the world in 6 days personally. I see that you do not seem to like it and think it ought to have been done more quickly but like I said, I wasn't there and do not know the inner working of what went into there beyong, God said, "let there be light and there was light" etc.

Yes. "Let there be light" was just the first thing of many He spoke. Genesis 1 is replete with "And God said..." My point is He didn't just speak once... "And God said Bring all things into existence." He spoke and organized. He made the water "move" and "divide." Read the first 10 verses of Genesis 1 and try to see a movie of what's going on. If you can see the description of what's being said, you'll be one step closer to understanding what I'm trying to tell you.

[Dr T]

Thanks Justice. I just remember when I was young and picked up the Bible and read that stuff. I put it back down and thought, "What!" It sounded simplistic to me at the time and so I stopped read it. I know see God in a different light and do not see it as impossible for Him to speak something into existence.

[Justice]

Dr T, it has nothing to do with what is *possible* for Him. The fact is, He rarely does things that He *could* do. I'm just trying to share something with you that I've come to know after many, many years of study, pondering, and prayer.

Do me a favor and read the first 10 verses is Genesis 1 and visualize it. Read it as many times as it takes to see it. See if He describes Himself willing things into existence, or if He is creating things like a skilled master artist. It's actually kinda fun. :)

You're a very pleasant person to speak with. Thanks for being so kind and patient. :)