What is a living G-d

[Traveler]

Okay - Applepansy's thread apout who Jesus is and responses got me thinking. What is a living being? When the scriptures say that G-d is the Living G-d; just what are the scriptures telling us?

For example as a living G-d is G-d part of the of the Empirical universe or not?

The Traveler

[HEthePrimate]

They're probably contrasting the real God with idols. Idols are inanimate objects created by people, whereas God is a real living being. Various scriptures mention this, including Deut. 4:28:

And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.

[outcast]

Heavenly Father is our father in heaven.

He want's to hear from us. He loves us, and he wants to bless us just as a real father would want his children to be blessed.

He cares about us. And when he blesses us, he expects us to express our gratitude for that blessing.

"He took the cup, and gave thanks" (Matthew 26:27).

"He took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks" (Matthew 15:36).

"Thou shalt thank the Lord thy God in all things" (D&C 59:7).

"Ye must give thanks unto God in the Spirit for whatsoever blessing ye are blessed with" (D&C 46:32).

"Let the peace of God rule in your hearts, . . . and be ye thankful" (Colossians 3:15).

"Verily I say unto you my friends, fear not, let your hearts be comforted; yea, rejoice evermore, and in everything give thanks" (D&C 98:1).

"When thou risest in the morning let thy heart be full of thanks unto God" (Alma 37:37).

Our Heavenly Father loves us. He is a mystery in his works but the God of the bible is very accurate. Read the bible and you will come to know him. Do his will and allow the Holy Ghost to work in you as you preach his gospel before others and you will come to understand him.

Sit on the computer and search for answers, and you will probably leave confused. God is ACTION.

Check out The Finger of God to see his miracles in ACTION.

Amazon.com: Finger of God: Darren Wilson: Movies & TV

[slamjet]

I find it so interesting that a person calling himself "Outcast" tries to pass off as a person so full religious fervor, wisdom and insight. Just the name alone makes me think twice of listening anything this person has to say. Seems to be a bit on the fringes and fanatical side of things.

[LocalFarms]

I find it so interesting that a person calling himself "Outcast" tries to pass off as a person so full religious fervor, wisdom and insight. Just the name alone makes me think twice of listening anything this person has to say. Seems to be a bit on the fringes and fanatical side of things.

Why is that? We are told we would be outcast and scorned for following after Christ

[slamjet]

Why is that? We are told we would be outcast and scorned for following after Christ

Why concentrate on that? Why not concentrate on the good news of the Atonement instead of all the negative stuff that comes with it? None of the past Prophets did. Taking on the persona of an outcast for Christ sake is not what the Gospel is all about. It's about living with joy in Christ as the Savior and example of how our lives need to be patterned after.

Edited May 21, 2011 by slamjet

[scorned]

Why concentrate on that? Why not concentrate on the good news of the Atonement instead of all the negative stuff that comes with it? None of the past Prophets did. Taking on the persona of an outcast for Christ sake is not what the Gospel is all about. It's about living with joy in Christ as the Savior and example of how our lives need to be patterned after.

And was your post mocking Outcast done in a possitive, uplifting spirit?

[slamjet]

And was your post mocking Outcast done in a possitive, uplifting spirit?

Nope, I never claimed perfection, just annoyance at self-aggrandizement and hopefully pointing out an alternative perspective.

[slamjet]

As for the OP, I'll take Joseph Smith at his word of what he saw in the First Vision and understand that as a mere mortal, with a mortal mind, I would be unable to understand the whole of God's influence. Including how he is more involved in our personal lives than we realize. We are numbered because He created us, and we are His. Paraphrasing, He, who notes the sparrow's fall, how much greater are we?

[Traveler]

Let me get back to my question - Scientifically - what is alive and what is not? One poster (HEthePrimate) offered a suggestion concerning idols and the "real" G-d. Why would we not consider an idol "real". Why would we not think of an idol as "living".

The concepts of seeing, hearing, and other senses implies empirical characteristics. Would we say that the reason an idol is not living - is because it lacks a spirit? Does not all matter have a spiritual quality? Also is spirit - by itself living? I am just trying to get to why G-d tells us that he is living - what is he telling us about himself?

The Traveler

[kayne]

He is saying he is alive. he has a body. he can hear and see. He exists and has indepence of thought. an idol like a statue lacks this. i can talk to my tv all day long but it will give me no response. God i can talk to and he will respond.

hence the word Living. admittely he is living differently than we are right now. but it still living.

His spirit and body are bound together permanently. He lacks blood(a sign of mortality) and dont ask me where ive heard i cant remeber entirely. but the exhalted body no longer has to breathe or do other things like it as that is a sign of waste going in and out of your body as its perfect so therefore it doesnt need to take stuff in to live and spit stuff out that is wasteful. each level of resurrected body posses its own traits. this all makes them living.

its something people certainly stumble over but is easy enough to comprehend its up there in heaven somewhere alive and well.

[Traveler]

He is saying he is alive. he has a body. he can hear and see. He exists and has indepence of thought. an idol like a statue lacks this. i can talk to my tv all day long but it will give me no response. God i can talk to and he will respond.

hence the word Living. admittely he is living differently than we are right now. but it still living.

His spirit and body are bound together permanently. He lacks blood(a sign of mortality) and dont ask me where ive heard i cant remeber entirely. but the exhalted body no longer has to breathe or do other things like it as that is a sign of waste going in and out of your body as its perfect so therefore it doesnt need to take stuff in to live and spit stuff out that is wasteful. each level of resurrected body posses its own traits. this all makes them living.

its something people certainly stumble over but is easy enough to comprehend its up there in heaven somewhere alive and well.

I find this post interesting and thought I would comment. Because I am directly involved with artificial intelligence and what science fiction is currently assuming here is a thought. Is there any life associated with artificial intelligence? I ask this because the poster I have quoted above talks about not being able to converse with their TV. There are AI conversation programs that few humans can tell if there are conversing with AI or an actual person.

Hearing and seeing are a response to external stimuli and AI is in essence “independent thought” - so I ask - do these things really define life and that which is living. Was Data on Stark Trek to be considered a living thing?

The Traveler

[JudoMinja]

I think life is a combination of spirit and body. There are many things that would be considered "alive" but do not "think" in the same way we do. I think the scripture where God was referred to as a "living" God was simply pointing out the fact that he is capable of giving a response, whereas false God's cannot. They are "dead" or "non-existent" because they are merely imagined or created within our minds. God is more than just a construct of the imagination. He is capable of acting and responding, of impacting that around Him.

[kayne]

I find this post interesting and thought I would comment. Because I am directly involved with artificial intelligence and what science fiction is currently assuming here is a thought. Is there any life associated with artificial intelligence? I ask this because the poster I have quoted above talks about not being able to converse with their TV. There are AI conversation programs that few humans can tell if there are conversing with AI or an actual person.

Hearing and seeing are a response to external stimuli and AI is in essence “independent thought” - so I ask - do these things really define life and that which is living. Was Data on Stark Trek to be considered a living thing?

The Traveler

well as i said The Lord partly defines life as having blood the sign of mortality. but its also defined as having a spirit. and somewhere it says your resurrected body is quickened with spirit instead of blood. i believe the key mark of life is a spirit because a spirit can live without a body(your pre life). but once you have a body the mark of life is generally a spirit and body bound together. of course the spirit world you have no body then either but then again you fall under the dead category but your spirit is still alive and still maintains memories of your life.

so really the spirit is the marker of life.

of course one must make clear are we talking about pre life,earth life, or after life as all 3 are defined a little differently.

[Traveler]

I tend to agree with the last two posters - life is defined as the combination of spirit and physical. The only problem I have with this defination is that in ancient Israel (Old Testament) G-d (pre Jesus with physical body) calls himself the Living G-d.

Any more thoughts?

The Traveler

[kayne]

I tend to agree with the last two posters - life is defined as the combination of spirit and physical. The only problem I have with this defination is that in ancient Israel (Old Testament) G-d (pre Jesus with physical body) calls himself the Living G-d.

Any more thoughts?

The Traveler

well in that particular state he was still in his pre existence and in the pre existence life is defined strictly as far we know by a spirit which was previously an intelligence. so as stated life is defined by what time frame you mean pre life,earth life and after life. in this case Jesus is the Living God but in his pre life state. i suppose technically by definition of a God he wasnt quite there yet since he lacked a physical body and Jesus never became an actual complete God until his ressurection. but His role there was certainly that of a Living God and in no way takes anything away from Him its just He too had to pass through earth because He too did in fact need a body.

another way of putting it could be Satan is still in his first estate. Jesus at that time was still in his first estate.

think about it excluding Satan our pre existence lasted until we came to earth in all reality so everybody has a different length of how long we were in the pre existence.

Jesus makes an interesting reference in i think 3rd nephi He says something to effect of become like I am now. well at that time he is ressurected so he wants you to become like he is then a ressurected being an exalted being.

[Traveler]

Perhaps there is another explanation. Perhaps living does mean spirit and physical body. Here is another thought. Because Jesus plays more than one role he can speak for himself in one situation and for the Father in another. It is this fact that has caused all the confusion with Trinitarians who realizing that different persons - will from time to time speak in the first person for the individual they represent. This being the case then it does indeed make sense that G-d tells us that the “Living” G-d is a G-d of flesh and bones.

The Traveler

[swampgeek]

Not trying to dilute the conversation or anything and the last comment by Traveler is quite probable in the context of scriptural references.

On the idea of "living" in general I don't see where having a "body" would particularly preclude Christ from being "living" though. A sentient spirit would still be alive. Something with the knowledge, intelligence, and faculties of Christ would be the essence of sentient whether possessing a physical body or not, in my opinion.

Life is not defined by having a body and being alive is more than a state, but is ever growing changing. Scientist and philosophers have struggled with defining "living" and will continue to as we work within the confines of the limited human existence. Was Christ any less a living being before he gained a body? I think I would have to say no.

[Traveler]

I do not what to sound critical - but this is becoming more and more to apear that no one know what a "Living" G-d is or means. I am going to have to do some major research on this - finding answers is most interesting to me - as well as fun.

What bothers me is why this term is used in scripture when it seem that no one has a real clue what it really means. Why would the L-rd tell us something we do not and cannot understand?

I do not know if this thread is dead yet or not but here is another question. Are the scriptures easy to understand or are the scriptures full of "hidden" truths that require a great deal of study and insparation - perhaps even living in a spiritual manner before we can understand?

The Traveler

[JudoMinja]

Are the scriptures easy to understand or are the scriptures full of "hidden" truths that require a great deal of study and insparation - perhaps even living in a spiritual manner before we can understand?

The Traveler

I think both cases can be true. There are certain things in the scriptures that are very easy to understand. Then there are some other things that require deep study and pondering. We learn line-upon-line, and we will catch new things we never noticed before every time we read the scriptures, no matter how many times we've done so previously. Our understanding continues to slowly increase the more we work at it.

As far as what "Living" means in reference to the Living God, there are many possibilities all of which could be right. The one that seems to sit best in my mind right now is that He only meant it to explain that He is real and can respond while false gods cannot. Of course, as I continue to learn and grow and spiritually mature, I may find that it contains some other meaning I may not have considered previously.

[applepansy]

I think both cases can be true. There are certain things in the scriptures that are very easy to understand. Then there are some other things that require deep study and pondering. We learn line-upon-line, and we will catch new things we never noticed before every time we read the scriptures, no matter how many times we've done so previously. Our understanding continues to slowly increase the more we work at it.

As far as what "Living" means in reference to the Living God, there are many possibilities all of which could be right. The one that seems to sit best in my mind right now is that He only meant it to explain that He is real and can respond while false gods cannot. Of course, as I continue to learn and grow and spiritually mature, I may find that it contains some other meaning I may not have considered previously.

Well said.

[Traveler]

I think both cases can be true. There are certain things in the scriptures that are very easy to understand. Then there are some other things that require deep study and pondering. We learn line-upon-line, and we will catch new things we never noticed before every time we read the scriptures, no matter how many times we've done so previously. Our understanding continues to slowly increase the more we work at it.

As far as what "Living" means in reference to the Living God, there are many possibilities all of which could be right. The one that seems to sit best in my mind right now is that He only meant it to explain that He is real and can respond while false gods cannot. Of course, as I continue to learn and grow and spiritually mature, I may find that it contains some other meaning I may not have considered previously.

Thank you for your post, I think your are close to something. In ancient Israel the idols most criticized were representations Baal. But Baal is a most interesting character that has many rather scary parallels to Christ. Baal is a demigod that was the son of El and a mortal mother. Baal was given power (specifically thunder and lighting - or control of weather) which he uses in his quest to save mankind from Mot and Yammin that intend to enslave mankind through death. Thus it is the Baal saved mankind from Death.

The point I ponder here is the interesting reference to a g-d of living or livind g-d as opposed to a g-d of the dead being a anti-thesis of a living g-d as is highlighted in the epoch of Baal.

So perhaps a living G-d is a G-d with power over death and the power to give or breathe - the "Breath of Life".

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I do not what to sound critical - but this is becoming more and more to apear that no one know what a "Living" G-d is or means. I am going to have to do some major research on this - finding answers is most interesting to me - as well as fun.

What bothers me is why this term is used in scripture when it seem that no one has a real clue what it really means. Why would the L-rd tell us something we do not and cannot understand?

I do not know if this thread is dead yet or not but here is another question. Are the scriptures easy to understand or are the scriptures full of "hidden" truths that require a great deal of study and insparation - perhaps even living in a spiritual manner before we can understand?

The Traveler

I think the reason it is difficult to pinpoint is because the scriptures are meant to have different meaning to us at different points in our lives. I think JudoMinja's description of a God that can react is kind of the basic meaning of 'Living' but it can also include the other things people have mentioned such as a reasoning and reacting God or even a God that is not static in His work.

Also 'dead' refers to a separation from God or simply not being whole as in the separation of the body and spirit. So, 'Living' in that sense can also mean whole or full or not separated from the fullness. In that sense we are all in a dead state right now as 'man must surely die' to be in this state.

[Vort]

I do not what to sound critical - but this is becoming more and more to apear that no one know what a "Living" G-d is or means. I am going to have to do some major research on this - finding answers is most interesting to me - as well as fun.

What bothers me is why this term is used in scripture when it seem that no one has a real clue what it really means. Why would the L-rd tell us something we do not and cannot understand?

The origin of the phrase seems obvious to me. Pagans worshiped gods of stone and wood, or else gods of ethereal essence, remote from mankind, existing in some sort of über-reality above our plane. In contrast, the God of the Hebrews was immediate, real, literal, not a creation of man's hands or mind. He spoke because he had a mouth and breath. He felt emotions -- love, anger, outrage, mercy, desire, justice, calmness -- just as we do. The Hebrews were to become like God. How does one become like an idol of stone or a remote, ethereal non-essence? No, Jehovah was none of those things. He was a living God: Real, immediate, literal, present, feeling.

[Traveler]

The origin of the phrase seems obvious to me. Pagans worshiped gods of stone and wood, or else gods of ethereal essence, remote from mankind, existing in some sort of über-reality above our plane. In contrast, the God of the Hebrews was immediate, real, literal, not a creation of man's hands or mind. He spoke because he had a mouth and breath. He felt emotions -- love, anger, outrage, mercy, desire, justice, calmness -- just as we do. The Hebrews were to become like God. How does one become like an idol of stone or a remote, ethereal non-essence? No, Jehovah was none of those things. He was a living God: Real, immediate, literal, present, feeling.

Understanding ancient thinking, I believe, at least in part, to be most important in trying to understand what was meant by a living G-d. Perhaps the g-d most worshiped in the ancient world that we see in any competition in Israel was Baal. Although idol makers made representations of Baal; we should not confuse what we think of as the worship of Baal with idol worship in the manner many think to do so. In the epoch of Baal - there are many similarities to the stories we hear of Christ. For example Baal was a demigod born of El and a mortal mother and Baal is a savior of mankind and a means by which man could live in heaven as a servant with the G-ds. Anciently El was believed to be the creator and the father of all g-ds.

There are many scholars that believe El and the G-d of the Old Testament to be the same being expressed in different cultures. Is the G-d of the Bible trying to distinguish himself from other entities considered G-d? I am thinking that in this instance, something has been lost over time and that the scriptures are saying something I am not sure we understand very well anymore.

The Traveler