Why have we been given bodies?

[madeleine1]

I have good answers for these questions but I'm still waiting for you to answer the original question, this is the fourth time I'll ask it.

If God has no body, why did he give us one?

And I'll answer for the fourth time.

Because God LOVES you.

A perfect, simple, answer, for everyone.

[maiku]

maiku, your question is based on a false premise, like asking, "when are you going to stop beating your wife?"...it is a question that can't be answered.

The only answer that can be given is God doesn't have a body.

God gave you a body because He LOVES you. Accept God's love.

Please don't misunderstand my intentions here. It's not that I don't have an understanding of God's love for me, or the plan He created for my eternal happiness. I posed the question to see how non-LDS try to reconcile this gap of logic.

Even though you thought you'd answered the question, you still didn't, and I'll explain why.

If God loves me, why didn't He just make me a spirit like He is? Why did He have to give me a body to show me He loves me?

[madeleine1]

Please don't misunderstand my intentions here. It's not that I don't have an understanding of God's love for me, or the plan He created for my eternal happiness. I posed the question to see how non-LDS try to reconcile this gap of logic.

Even though you thought you'd answered the question, you still didn't, and I'll explain why.

If God loves me, why didn't He just make me a spirit like He is? Why did He have to give me a body to show me He loves me?

What gap? He didn't have to give you a body. He did make you a spirit like He is, you have a soul, that was created at the time of your conception.

I can't understand what the difficulty is in understanding that we accept what God has done for us, and do not need to find a utilitarian purpose for ourselves. We don't view our purpose as a utility, a means to an end, but as love itself. I get the sense that is what you are asking, what utilitarian purpose does a body have, in an eternal sense.

We hold no belief that our creation has any purpose but God's love for us, a desire that we love Him in return, and live with Him forever. Our relationship being simply one of love, the love of God being perfect, and our commandment to love God and one another. Love being the thing that God is telling us to do when He tells us to be perfect, even as He is.

Edited December 29, 2011 by madeleine1

[Guest]

Why give us a body to show His love, if He sees no need for one Himself?

[madeleine1]

Why give us a body to show His love, if He sees no need for one Himself?

I really don't understand this question. God doesn't need anything.

[Guest]

And I don't understand why giving us a body, which you say He doesn't have himself (but would you agree could have, if He wanted one?), is a show of love.

I see my body as a gift from Him, but under different logic. I guess I just don't get it. We can definitely agree to disagree.

[Guest]

Why give us a body to show His love, if He sees no need for one Himself?

Okay, okay, okay... I'm not Catholic. I'm LDS. But there's only 1 madeleine and many of you. So, I feel it is better use of my time to help madeleine out in the perspective of Catholicism because the LDS are well represented here. So, my input here is merely to make LDS understand where the Catholics are coming from - that it's not so strange to believe in what they believe. Hope this disclaimer is very clear.

Eowyn - start with this. In Catholic doctrine, God is a different substance than Man. So, what you are asking is basically - why did God not create another God?

Well, because He believes His love is better shared by Man than by another God.

Make sense?

[Jason_J]

He did make you a spirit like He is, you have a soul, that was created at the time of your conception.

I hope that you see how this statement of yours undermines your argument that LDS "don't believe" that God is [a] spirit.

[Guest]

That makes a bit more sense, anatess. I wasn't trying to dogpile her.

[madeleine1]

Okay, okay, okay... I'm not Catholic. I'm LDS. But there's only 1 madeleine and many of you. So, I feel it is better use of my time to help madeleine out in the perspective of Catholicism because the LDS are well represented here. So, my input here is merely to make LDS understand where the Catholics are coming from - that it's not so strange to believe in what they believe. Hope this disclaimer is very clear.

Eowyn - start with this. In Catholic doctrine, God is a different substance than Man. So, what you are asking is basically - why did God not create another God?

Well, because He believes His love is better shared by Man than by another God.

Make sense?

Thanks, that's pretty good. Only the "better shared" part is making a comparison that would not be made. Catholicism is monotheistic, there is One God, not "another God", anywhere.

God's attributes include the "omnis", omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. If there were to be "another God", these attributes would cease to exist. God would not be God.

[Guest]

And, no doubt, C.S. Lewis would therefore reject it. :) I always thought his logic on rejecting simplicity in favor of complexity rather odd. The very opposite of Occam's razor. :)

maiku: You probably realize by now that mainstream Christianity not only cannot answer the question but will not. And, don't worry, you really haven't committed the complex question fallacy. Your question is quite legit. They are simply content to let God be an incomprehensible mystery.

LDS believe God is spirit but also believe he has a body. Just as we are both spirit and body. The further light and knowledge of the restoration is truly great!

Connie, Connie, Connie... this is disingenuous, girlfriend! The restoration can be truly great without having to make mainstream Christianity seem like blind sheep. Or was it lemurs...

Madeleine gave a very valid answer. It's not her fault that you don't "get" her perspective.

Disclaimer: Valid doesn't necessarily mean it is true. It just means it's an acceptable hypothesis that makes sense.

[madeleine1]

I hope that you see how this statement of yours undermines your argument that LDS "don't believe" that God is [a] spirit.

LDS always have more, like the Coke Zero add...

God is a Spirit

AND....a body.

There is no AND in the scripture I quoted.

[maiku]

This is all great but why didn't he just create us with a spirit w/o a body, like He is?

We could still be human spirits, He didn't have to give us a body to show He loves us.

[Guest]

Thanks, that's pretty good. Only the "better shared" part is making a comparison that would not be made. Catholicism is monotheistic, there is One God, not "another God", anywhere.

God's attributes include the "omnis", omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence. If there were to be "another God", these attributes would cease to exist. God would not be God.

Madeleine. I'll give you some advice to make it easier here on lds.net (or any non-Catholic site for that matter).

It doesn't serve your purpose to be blinded by the differences between religions that you put meaning into a statement that does not exist just because you have to display a difference in doctrine.

This is a perfect example of what I'm trying to say.

Read my statement again. I said - God did not create another God. He created MAN. He could have created another God. Why not? He is omni-everything. But He didn't. That means His love is better shared by Man than by a God of His creation. Get it?

So, this was the worst time to insist on the difference between monotheistic and polytheistic or whatever theistic there is.

And here I was trying to help you out!

[Guest]

This is all great but why didn't he just create us with a spirit w/o a body, like He is?

We could still be human spirits, He didn't have to give us a body to show He loves us.

Maiku, what you're trying to ask here is - Why didn't God just create another God?

He didn't. He created Man. Man - by virtue of his manly substance - has a body. Creating another God is not what God thought as the best way to share His love just like creating a spiritual chicken, or a spiritual tree, or a spiritual air, is not what God thought as the best way to share His love.

Remember: God and Man in Christianity outside of LDS are two very different substances.

[Guest]

LDS always have more, like the Coke Zero add...

God is a Spirit

AND....a body.

There is no AND in the scripture I quoted.

Madeleine, the part that you are missing is that body - in LDS - is not just mortal bodies. This is really not an alien concept for Catholics either.

Think about it this way - in the catechism, we are taught that after we are resurrected, what do we get? A perfected body. We don't just stay as disembodied spirits - we gain a perfected body which is what Jesus Christ was trying to show us.

So.. When we, LDS, say God has a body - we don't mean mortal body. We mean the perfected body that Jesus Christ displayed after His resurrection. Make sense?

Edited December 29, 2011 by anatess

[Connie]

God is a different substance than Man.

He did make you a spirit like He is, you have a soul.

So if God and man are different substance and yet man has a spirit which is what God is, then the difference is in the physical body. Man has one and God does not. Is that correct?

So maiku is asking why did God give us a spirit like what He is but then also give us a body which He apparently does not have. Am i getting that right maiku?

Because He loves us is an incomplete answer. This assumes that the body is a good thing.

So if the body is a good thing, why does God not have one?

Am I getting this right maiku?

So take this argument:

Does God possess all good things? Yes.

Is the body a good thing? Yes. God gave us a body because He loves us.

So if God possess all good things and the body is a good thing, then logically God should have a body.

Either one has to reject that God is the possessor of all good things or one has to reject that the body is a good thing.

p.s. anatess, i would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Connie

[Guest]

So if God and man are different substance and yet man has a spirit which is what God is, then the difference is in the physical body. Man has one and God does not. Is that correct?

So maiku is asking why did God give us a spirit like what He is but then also give us a body which He apparently does not have. Am i getting that right maiku?

No. Our spirit is not the same substance as God's spirit either.

The body is not the only thing that makes us not-God. We are not omniscient, omnipotent, omni-whatever. But, we do have Godlike qualities - like self-determination, free will, capacity for love, etc. etc. - which is what Christians believe is the meaning of "God made man in His image and likeness".

Because He loves us is an incomplete answer. This assumes that the body is a good thing.

So if the body is a good thing, why does God not have one?

Am I getting this right maiku?

So take this argument:

Does God possess all good things? Yes.

Is the body a good thing? Yes. God gave us a body because He loves us.

So if God possess all good things and the body is a good thing, then logically God should have a body.

Either one has to reject that God is the possessor of all good things or one has to reject that the body is a good thing.

The tree is a good thing, right? Why isn't God a tree? Or have a bark and leaves and cholorophyl.

Answer that.

p.s. anatess, i would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth.

What words would those be?

[Connie]

How you presented my argument:

God is all good things.

The body is a good thing.

Therefore, God is a body.

Very good. I agree it's an absurd argument. However, how you presented my argument was very different than my actual argument.

Here it is again:

Does God possess all good things? Yes.

Is the body a good thing? Yes. God gave us a body because He loves us.

So if God possess all good things and the body is a good thing, then logically God should have a body.

Now, would you please address my actual argument and refrain from brutalizing innocent strawmen. :)

[madeleine1]

So if God and man are different substance and yet man has a spirit which is what God is, then the difference is in the physical body. Man has one and God does not. Is that correct?

So maiku is asking why did God give us a spirit like what He is but then also give us a body which He apparently does not have. Am i getting that right maiku?

Because He loves us is an incomplete answer. This assumes that the body is a good thing.

So if the body is a good thing, why does God not have one?

Am I getting this right maiku?

So take this argument:

Does God possess all good things? Yes.

Is the body a good thing? Yes. God gave us a body because He loves us.

So if God possess all good things and the body is a good thing, then logically God should have a body.

Either one has to reject that God is the possessor of all good things or one has to reject that the body is a good thing.

p.s. anatess, i would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth.

hi, the soul is in the image and likeness of God, but the soul is not God.

God is Good, and all that is created by Him was created as Good. I don't know why God needs to possess what He has created in order for the something to be Good. It is Good because God is Good and God does not Create unGodly (or un-goodly) things.

[madeleine1]

Madeleine. I'll give you some advice to make it easier here on lds.net (or any non-Catholic site for that matter).

It doesn't serve your purpose to be blinded by the differences between religions that you put meaning into a statement that does not exist just because you have to display a difference in doctrine.

This is a perfect example of what I'm trying to say.

Read my statement again. I said - God did not create another God. He created MAN. He could have created another God. Why not? He is omni-everything. But He didn't. That means His love is better shared by Man than by a God of His creation. Get it?

So, this was the worst time to insist on the difference between monotheistic and polytheistic or whatever theistic there is.

And here I was trying to help you out!

um wow, apparently you took my response not as I intended at all.

The statement "God did not create another God" is an idea that comes from Mormonism, and so is not a Catholic argument. It does provide a comparative explanation to a Mormon, but the explanation shouldn't cause LDS to believe that Catholics considered the idea that God created more gods, and we just rejected that idea.

The purpose of explaining the difference of monotheism/polytheism wasn't meant to do anything but show how a Catholic thinks. We think of One God and One God alone, so the whole premise that we need a body in order to be a god, is foreign to Catholic thought, but in the conversation here, can't seem to be extracted. It was for clarification only, it wasn't a dig of some kind.

A little benefit of the doubt would go a long way.

[Guest]

Does God possess all good things? Yes.

Is the body a good thing? Yes. God gave us a body because He loves us.

So if God possess all good things and the body is a good thing, then logically God should have a body.

Now, would you please address my actual argument and refrain from brutalizing innocent strawmen. :)

Okay, let me try this again. And leave the strawman in the farm. I didn't bring him here.

"So if God possess all good things and the body is a good thing, then logically God should have a body."

Let's concentrate on that. I told you... Wood for a tree is a good thing. By your argument, logically God should have wood too. God gave Man a tree because He loves them. Does that mean He also needs a Tree to be happy? No he doesn't.

[madeleine1]

This is all great but why didn't he just create us with a spirit w/o a body, like He is?

We could still be human spirits, He didn't have to give us a body to show He loves us.

No He didn't, but He did.

God didn't have to Create anything. He did so out of love.

If you want to think of it this way, a fruit of God's Love is Creation, which includes you.

[madeleine1]

Maiku, the part that you are missing is that body - in LDS - is not just mortal bodies. This is really not an alien concept for Catholics either.

Think about it this way - in the catechism, we are taught that after we are resurrected, what do we get? A perfected body. We don't just stay as disembodied spirits - we gain a perfected body which is what Jesus Christ was trying to show us.

So.. When we, LDS, say God has a body - we don't mean mortal body. We mean the perfected body that Jesus Christ displayed after His resurrection. Make sense?

I had the impression maiku was asking why we are created with a body. I don't see where he was asking about being resurrected with a body.

So, you've lost me.

[Guest]

um wow, apparently you took my response not as I intended at all.

The statement "God did not create another God" is an idea that comes from Mormonism, and so is not a Catholic argument. It does provide a comparative explanation to a Mormon, but the explanation shouldn't cause LDS to believe that Catholics considered the idea that God created more gods, and we just rejected that idea.

You really need to pay more attention to what is written instead of implying things in what is written that doesn't exist. I really don't know how else to explain it to you.

I don't understand how you could leap from God created the sky blue, not fuschia, to Catholics considered the idea that God created the sky fuschia and we just rejected that idea.

That's quite something.

The purpose of explaining the difference of monotheism/polytheism wasn't meant to do anything but show how a Catholic thinks. We think of One God and One God alone, so the whole premise that we need a body in order to be a god, is foreign to Catholic thought, but in the conversation here, can't seem to be extracted. It was for clarification only, it wasn't a dig of some kind.

A little benefit of the doubt would go a long way.

If you follow the logical extrapolation that Connie presented, you will see that mono/poly had no bearing on the argument and therefore, a Catholic shouldn't have trouble following the train of thought and responding accordingly, if she was so inclined.