Logic and Reason


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

I used the analogy of the candle flame as being in the image and likeness of the Sun. So yes, these attributes are also attributes of God, but not in degree of magnitude. We can love but we cannot love as God loves. We can do good, but we cannot do the good that God does. God does not just love, HE IS LOVE. He does not just do good, HE IS GOODNESS ITSELF. The greatest difference, however, is that we are not, by nature, divine. Only God is. Man has an immortal soul, created by God, but it is a human soul, not a divine soul by nature. We are given a divine nature by God, the gift of Himself, at the resurrection and will receive glorified bodies which will never diminish or decay.

So do you think the candle flame (man) is the best image and likeness of himself that G-d can do?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So do you think the candle flame (man) is the best image and likeness of himself that G-d can do?

The Traveler

God cannot, by his very nature, create something less than perfect. Man, through his own free will, has squandered the gifts first given to him. But we will be made perfect once again through the sanctifying grace of God.

The candle flame and the sun is simply my own poor attempt at drawing an anaology from nature. Any attempt I make at comparing man to God is going to fall short. My point is that God is infinitely and eternally greater than man. This is difficult for Mormons because you believe he is really no greater than us (naturally) other than his level of progression. You believe we are basically the same beings, even believing that God looks like us physically. My personal opinion is that Mormon theology has created God in man's image and likeness and therefore understands God as a caricature of man's potential. God is greater than us by nature, not because he is sitting in the front of the train and we are sitting behind him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God cannot, by his very nature, create something less than perfect. Man, through his own free will, has squandered the gifts first given to him. But we will be made perfect once again through the sanctifying grace of God.

The candle flame and the sun is simply my own poor attempt at drawing an anaology from nature. Any attempt I make at comparing man to God is going to fall short. My point is that God is infinitely and eternally greater than man. This is difficult for Mormons because you believe he is really no greater than us (naturally) other than his level of progression. You believe we are basically the same beings, even believing that God looks like us physically. My personal opinion is that Mormon theology has created God in man's image and likeness and therefore understands God as a caricature of man's potential. God is greater than us by nature, not because he is sitting in the front of the train and we are sitting behind him.

May I offer a suggestion (drawing from nature)? Man is to G-d like an eagle egg is to an eagle. If we view the egg as it appears in the moment we realize how much unlike a souring eagle an egg is but if we learned to see things outside of time (eternal) we could gain a different understanding and perspective. That man is the perfect creation (embryo) in the likeness and image of G-d. If we loose ourselves in service of G-d like G-d looses himself in service of man we will grow and develop to be more like him. Is this so different from what you believe?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I offer a suggestion (drawing from nature)? Man is to G-d like an eagle egg is to an eagle. If we view the egg as it appears in the moment we realize how much unlike a souring eagle an egg is but if we learned to see things outside of time (eternal) we could gain a different understanding and perspective. That man is the perfect creation (embryo) in the likeness and image of G-d. If we loose ourselves in service of G-d like G-d looses himself in service of man we will grow and develop to be more like him. Is this so different from what you believe?

The Traveler

In a sense, we are not too far apart. However in Catholic theology the comparison would fall short because even an eagle's egg is still of the substance of "eagle", if you will. The same would be true, however, with my analogy of the flame and the sun. It is really difficult to draw any comparison from nature because nothing in nature is really like God. We believe God is completley "other". We are not the same beings. God is divine in his very essence and we are human in our very essence. We only attain divinity from outside of our human nature, we do not possess it of our own nature. This is vitally important to know from the Catholic standpoint. We were given certain spiritual charactaristics by which we are made in God's image and likeness and God will share his divinity with us at the resurrection, at which time we will realize the fullness of what it means to be made in his image and likeness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a sense, we are not too far apart. However in Catholic theology the comparison would fall short because even an eagle's egg is still of the substance of "eagle", if you will. The same would be true, however, with my analogy of the flame and the sun. It is really difficult to draw any comparison from nature because nothing in nature is really like God. We believe God is completley "other". We are not the same beings. God is divine in his very essence and we are human in our very essence. We only attain divinity from outside of our human nature, we do not possess it of our own nature. This is vitally important to know from the Catholic standpoint. We were given certain spiritual charactaristics by which we are made in God's image and likeness and God will share his divinity with us at the resurrection, at which time we will realize the fullness of what it means to be made in his image and likeness.

Hmmmmm - It would appear to me that our differences then are not because of logic and reason but because your assumptions (givens) are different than mine. My assumptions about G-d as with all living things is that there is a common fundamental essence. I see that essence in all his creations - from the most distant star and primitive star dust as well as the basic fundamental organisms or the most sophisticated life forms. Two things I believe reflect this fundamental essence and interestingly the things are tightly coupled.

First is that in observing life I have found that in order for life to evolve and become more "advanced" and "sophisticated" it is necessary for lower forms of life to establish symbiont relationships with other life forms of common essence to established a higher life form. In fact there are more living cells of organisms foreign to your human DNA that are hosted in your body than there are human cells of your DNA.

The second is in observing that G-d desires, even commands, that we become one with him in the exact manner that Jesus and the Father are one. This is the most advanced and sophisticated life form that is fundamental to the eternal existence of our universe. Man can only be one with G-d if there is a common essence - this very topic was discussed between Jesus and the Pharisees and Scribes.

However, you are as free to see what you will see am I.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm - It would appear to me that our differences then are not because of logic and reason but because your assumptions (givens) are different than mine. My assumptions about G-d as with all living things is that there is a common fundamental essence. I see that essence in all his creations - from the most distant star and primitive star dust as well as the basic fundamental organisms or the most sophisticated life forms. Two things I believe reflect this fundamental essence and interestingly the things are tightly coupled.

First is that in observing life I have found that in order for life to evolve and become more "advanced" and "sophisticated" it is necessary for lower forms of life to establish symbiont relationships with other life forms of common essence to established a higher life form. In fact there are more living cells of organisms foreign to your human DNA that are hosted in your body than there are human cells of your DNA.

The second is in observing that G-d desires, even commands, that we become one with him in the exact manner that Jesus and the Father are one. This is the most advanced and sophisticated life form that is fundamental to the eternal existence of our universe. Man can only be one with G-d if there is a common essence - this very topic was discussed between Jesus and the Pharisees and Scribes.

However, you are as free to see what you will see am I.

The Traveler

Traveler, it has always been my contention that the reason communication is so difficult at times between Mormons and Catholics (and other Christians, as well) is that we begin at fundamentally different points of view, both theologically and anthropologically. The central issues are really pre-mortal existence and the nature of God. These very fundamental beliefs underly one's position on nearly every other issue and most of the time the two parties engaged in conversation are unaware of this influence. It affects everything, from the culpability of Adam and Eve, to the state of life in which we find ourselves, to the purpose and way of salvation itself; it affects the most fundamental questions of life; who are we and who is God and how do we relate to him?

So your conclusion that our differences are not based upon logic and reason, necessarily, is spot on, in my opinion. If people begin from two different starting points with the goal of reaching the same destination, it becomes difficult to discuss the correct path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler, it has always been my contention that the reason communication is so difficult at times between Mormons and Catholics (and other Christians, as well) is that we begin at fundamentally different points of view, both theologically and anthropologically. The central issues are really pre-mortal existence and the nature of God. These very fundamental beliefs underly one's position on nearly every other issue and most of the time the two parties engaged in conversation are unaware of this influence. It affects everything, from the culpability of Adam and Eve, to the state of life in which we find ourselves, to the purpose and way of salvation itself; it affects the most fundamental questions of life; who are we and who is God and how do we relate to him?

So your conclusion that our differences are not based upon logic and reason, necessarily, is spot on, in my opinion. If people begin from two different starting points with the goal of reaching the same destination, it becomes difficult to discuss the correct path.

I think we have come to a reasonable understanding. In reality I have wondered many time what matters most or for that matter, what matters at all to G-d. I personally appreciate the parable of the Good Samaritan because I believe it down plays doctrinal dogma in favor of character - which I believe to be the most logical and reasonable explanation of what matters to G-d.

This is not meant as a jab at doctrine but I personally cannot reconcile that this mortal life is "just" given the parameters of birth and death. Most religious theologians understand that justice must reach beyond death and to one degree or another, justify the existence of Hell on that bases but will not realize the equally important unequal justice parameters associated directly with justice that are set at birth.

On the other hand; among my atheists colleagues the injustices and inequalities of birth are a prime reason that they reject religion - most everything else is in essence an excuse. That this misunderstanding is address as it is in religious circles - is the single reason most atheists I know have rejected religion and consider religion intolerable. This became most prevalent in a formal public debate I had with a fellow, Chris Allen (the local president of the national Atheists Association) concerning the possible existence of a just G-d.

I understand that many religious theologian deal with the justice of G-d according to their understanding of religious doctrine on one hand and then condemn any bias towards or afforded a person because of their birth as demonic type of unjust racial prejudice.

Often I ask the question of fellow Christians -- If you were accused in a formal court of law of believing in a just G-d; do you really think there is enough evidence to convict you? This goes along with something my brother once said. - The way to tell if someone understands compound interest is in the simple observation; if the pay it or collect it.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have come to a reasonable understanding. In reality I have wondered many time what matters most or for that matter, what matters at all to G-d. I personally appreciate the parable of the Good Samaritan because I believe it down plays doctrinal dogma in favor of character - which I believe to be the most logical and reasonable explanation of what matters to G-d.

Or Jesus was showing the difference between authentic love and those that just talk about it. I don't think it has to do with doctrine as opposed to authenticity, but rather whether or not one is truly practicing the doctrines they claim to hold. In Christianity the central doctrine is love. If we love authentically, we are keeping all of the commandments. We make it way to hard sometimes, don't you think?

This is not meant as a jab at doctrine but I personally cannot reconcile that this mortal life is "just" given the parameters of birth and death.

It most certainly is not just, but this is the doing of man and satan, not God. Only God is truly just and his justice will prevail in the end.

Most religious theologians understand that justice must reach beyond death and to one degree or another, justify the existence of Hell on that bases but will not realize the equally important unequal justice parameters associated directly with justice that are set at birth.

Not sure what you are saying here. Maybe you could explain further. I would agree that justice must reach beyond death, but past that I'm a bit confused by your statement.

On the other hand; among my atheists colleagues the injustices and inequalities of birth are a prime reason that they reject religion - most everything else is in essence an excuse. That this misunderstanding is address as it is in religious circles - is the single reason most atheists I know have rejected religion and consider religion intolerable. This became most prevalent in a formal public debate I had with a fellow, Chris Allen (the local president of the national Atheists Association) concerning the possible existence of a just G-d.

Yes, its an old argument. If there is a God then why is there evil in the world? If there is evil then there can be no God. It comes down to a lack of understanding the nature of free will and the real presence of evil which entered the world through man's own choice. It is playing the victim, always seeking someone to blame; ultimately God. Yet even as mankind engages in evil acts, the sun rises each morning, the flowers bloom, a baby is born, two people fall in love, a hungry person is fed, a naked person is clothed. They don't seem to consider the good in the world and the Source of that good.

I understand that many religious theologian deal with the justice of G-d according to their understanding of religious doctrine on one hand and then condemn any bias towards or afforded a person because of their birth as demonic type of unjust racial prejudice.

Sorry, I don't follow.

Often I ask the question of fellow Christians -- If you were accused in a formal court of law of believing in a just G-d; do you really think there is enough evidence to convict you? This goes along with something my brother once said. - The way to tell if someone understands compound interest is in the simple observation; if the pay it or collect it.

:clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or Jesus was showing the difference between authentic love and those that just talk about it. I don't think it has to do with doctrine as opposed to authenticity, but rather whether or not one is truly practicing the doctrines they claim to hold. In Christianity the central doctrine is love. If we love authentically, we are keeping all of the commandments. We make it way to hard sometimes, don't you think?

According to the Jews the Samaritans believed the most apostate and incorrect doctrine. To just talk to a Samaritan at the beginning of Sabbath rendered one too unclean to worship at synagogue. Thus in the parable the Samaritan is symbolic of a false belief - or false covenant based on false doctrine. The priest and Levitt are symbolic of those that belong to the "true" covenant people that believe true doctrine.

But I do agree that love is a greater doctrine for which man will be judged than the doctrine of trinity or that the Bible is the word of G-d.

It most certainly is not just, but this is the doing of man and satan, not God. Only God is truly just and his justice will prevail in the end.

Are your really saying G-d has no input or influence into the birth and station of any person? That such things are under the complete and total control of man and Satan without an influence or input from G-d? I realize this is a problem because if G-d has any influence in any unequal birth in unequal spiritual circumstance one to another he is complicit in the injustice. There is scripture that indicates G-d is in complete control of at least one person's station and disadvantage in life (being contrary to your doctrine because it was G-d and not man or Satan that caused the man Jesus healed to be born blind - in order the the powers of G-d could be manifested. Can you show for me in scripture where G-d does not determine or allow or give overriding approval, what station or spiritual situation to which a child is born?

Not sure what you are saying here. Maybe you could explain further. I would agree that justice must reach beyond death, but past that I'm a bit confused by your statement.

Perhaps we need to define justice. I define justice in that every blessing must be deserved or earned and every curse must be the result of some evil. Therefor it is unjust that any undeserving receive a unearned benefit or that any punishment in effect on someone that did not commit the crime. But I would go one step more. That if there is a all powerful entity (an omnipotent being) that allows injustice to befall any innocent creature - that being is not a just being.

Yes, its an old argument. If there is a God then why is there evil in the world? If there is evil then there can be no God. It comes down to a lack of understanding the nature of free will and the real presence of evil which entered the world through man's own choice. It is playing the victim, always seeking someone to blame; ultimately God. Yet even as mankind engages in evil acts, the sun rises each morning, the flowers bloom, a baby is born, two people fall in love, a hungry person is fed, a naked person is clothed. They don't seem to consider the good in the world and the Source of that good.

You do not understand the argument - it is not weather evil exist or not in the world but that if someone with the power to prevent evil from causing innocent suffering but chooses not to - how can such a power be understood to be loving or just.

However, I do agree that man (every person that is born) did agree to allow evil to come to earth and to be born to that circumstance to learn good from evil. BTW did you know that the title Adam is the ancient metaphor or symbolic name to represent all mankind?

Sorry, I don't follow.

If a person suffers because of the parameters of their birth - and G-d has power to heal - as was demonstrated by Jesus - Why does anyone suffer because of things beyond their control? Why are some healed and not others?

The Traveler

The power in understanding for LDS is that we all once lived with G-d and chose by our free will to come to earth in what-ever circumstance to which we are born and live. BTW - That is why when we die - we return (we cannot return to a place or circumstance to which we have never been) to that G-d that is our Father.

The Traveler

PS - now the point that I would make here is not a point to say that this doctrine you must believe - but to make the point that if a person, did of their own free will and choice - make the choice (sacrifice) to whatever circumstance to which they are born - that no one could claim that it was unjustly forced upon them in their ignorance.

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the Jews the Samaritans believed the most apostate and incorrect doctrine. To just talk to a Samaritan at the beginning of Sabbath rendered one too unclean to worship at synagogue. Thus in the parable the Samaritan is symbolic of a false belief - or false covenant based on false doctrine. The priest and Levitt are symbolic of those that belong to the "true" covenant people that believe true doctrine.

The only real difference between the Samaritans is that they did not worship in Jerusalem. They worshipped where Jacob worshipped instead and this separated them. You are correct in that they were looked down upon, but not quite as much as the Gentiles.

But I do agree that love is a greater doctrine for which man will be judged than the doctrine of trinity or that the Bible is the word of G-d.

We cannot dismiss the importance of correct doctrine. The point is that if we do not love, the correctness of doctrine does not matter.

Are your really saying G-d has no input or influence into the birth and station of any person?

No, that is not what I am saying. We would not be born unless God intended for us to be born. But we are not given a "station in life", as if God said "This one is going to be poor and this one is going to be rich. I was responding as to why evil is in the world, and that is not the work of God but rather man. God is incapable of doing evil.

I realize this is a problem because if G-d has any influence in any unequal birth in unequal spiritual circumstance one to another he is complicit in the injustice. There is scripture that indicates G-d is in complete control of at least one person's station and disadvantage in life (being contrary to your doctrine because it was G-d and not man or Satan that caused the man Jesus healed to be born blind - in order the the powers of G-d could be manifested.

I would say that God allowed the man to be born blind (but did not cause it) and used this curse to bring glory to his name.

Can you show for me in scripture where G-d does not determine or allow or give overriding approval, what station or spiritual situation to which a child is born?

You're asking me to prove a negative. In any event, God allows evil and then overcomes evil. In the end, no evil will exist.

Perhaps we need to define justice. I define justice in that every blessing must be deserved or earned and every curse must be the result of some evil.

But we cannot discuss the justice of God without at the same time discussing the mercy of God. God's mercy is stronger than his justice. His grace, by definition, is a free, undeserved gift. So God operates within the bounds of love, not cold, hard justice.

Therefor it is unjust that any undeserving receive a unearned benefit

That would apply to all of us, would it not? Do you deserve eternal life, Traveler? If you do then you do not need a Savior.

or that any punishment in effect on someone that did not commit the crime. But I would go one step more. That if there is a all powerful entity (an omnipotent being) that allows injustice to befall any innocent creature - that being is not a just being.

We can rest assured that no one will be "punished" if they are innocent. Christ came to save sinners, not the righteous. He has done just the opposite of punishing the innocent; he has had mercy on the guilty. Our punishment, for the most part, is suffering the consequences of our sins. But I am intrigued here. It is an objective truth that injustice falls on the innocent in our world, Jesus Christ being the greatest example of that. So what is your answer? You seem to be arguing that God cannot, therefore, exist.

You do not understand the argument - it is not weather evil exist or not in the world but that if someone with the power to prevent evil from causing innocent suffering but chooses not to - how can such a power be understood to be loving or just.

Maybe because God can bring about an even greater good from the evil that exists. The worst crime in human history was the killing of the Son of God. God transformed this evil into the greatest good known to man. Salvation. So I would not agree with the premise of your argument.

However, I do agree that man (every person that is born) did agree to allow evil to come to earth and to be born to that circumstance to learn good from evil.

I don't know with whom you are agreeing, but is isn't me. I don't buy into pre-mortal existence at all. But this proves my point that we will start talking past each other because we begin from completely different perspectives. You believe that you made the decision to be who you are before you were born. I don't. I was given the free gift of life for no other reason than God willed my existence so that he might love me and I might love him.

BTW did you know that the title Adam is the ancient metaphor or symbolic name to represent all mankind? If a person suffers because of the parameters of their birth - and G-d has power to heal - as was demonstrated by Jesus - Why does anyone suffer because of things beyond their control? Why are some healed and not others?

Maybe I should just give an example. Two people fall in love, get married, have children and live a wonderful life full of love and happiness. Another man decides, of his own free will, to get drunk and drive home. The couple's two year old runs into the street just as the dunk is driving by and is hit and killed. This devastates the family. The mother begins drinking in order to kill her pain and becomes unavailable to the other children and her husband. The Father cannot concentrate at work and looses his job. Long story short, the marriage ends up in divorce and the children are then raised in a broken family and scarred for life. All of this because of one man's choice to drink that day and drive home. What did God have to do with this situation? Should he then make us robots and not allow us to make choices based upon our free will? This is a true story by the way and happened to a family I know.

The power in understanding for LDS is that we all once lived with G-d and chose by our free will to come to earth in what-ever circumstance to which we are born and live. BTW - That is why when we die - we return (we cannot return to a place or circumstance to which we have never been) to that G-d that is our Father.

PS - now the point that I would make here is not a point to say that this doctrine you must believe - but to make the point that if a person, did of their own free will and choice - make the choice (sacrifice) to whatever circumstance to which they are born - that no one could claim that it was unjustly forced upon them in their ignorance.

And so the drunk agreed that he would come to earth and kill the two year old and spend the rest of his life in prison, and the two year old agreed that she would be killed at the age of two which would devestate her entire family and thow it into complete disaray, not to mention that she would not be married for time and eternity in the temple and therefore attain the celestial kingdom, but because she chose this, everything is just fine. Sorry, I don't buy it. It lends itself to predestination in which we have no choice in this life; our station in life has been chosen before we are even born. I have even seen, on this forum, people justifying abortion as a choice made by the very one who is aborted, therefore concluding that it cannot be evil because the one being aborted chose to be aborted in their pre-mortal existence. If this is the case, then from what are we being saved? From the choice we made in our pre-mortal existence or from the choices we make in this life? The aborted child, however, has no choice in this life which would mean that she chose to become mortal but never to take her first breath. Why would anyone choose to do that? It defies reason.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only real difference between the Samaritans is that they did not worship in Jerusalem. They worshipped where Jacob worshipped instead and this separated them. You are correct in that they were looked down upon, but not quite as much as the Gentiles.

We cannot dismiss the importance of correct doctrine. The point is that if we do not love, the correctness of doctrine does not matter.

No, that is not what I am saying. We would not be born unless God intended for us to be born. But we are not given a "station in life", as if God said "This one is going to be poor and this one is going to be rich. I was responding as to why evil is in the world, and that is not the work of God but rather man. God is incapable of doing evil.

I would say that God allowed the man to be born blind (but did not cause it) and used this curse to bring glory to his name.

You're asking me to prove a negative. In any event, God allows evil and then overcomes evil. In the end, no evil will exist.

But we cannot discuss the justice of God without at the same time discussing the mercy of God. God's mercy is stronger than his justice. His grace, by definition, is a free, undeserved gift. So God operates within the bounds of love, not cold, hard justice.

That would apply to all of us, would it not? Do you deserve eternal life, Traveler? If you do then you do not need a Savior.

We can rest assured that no one will be "punished" if they are innocent. Christ came to save sinners, not the righteous. He has done just the opposite of punishing the innocent; he has had mercy on the guilty. Our punishment, for the most part, is suffering the consequences of our sins. But I am intrigued here. It is an objective truth that injustice falls on the innocent in our world, Jesus Christ being the greatest example of that. So what is your answer? You seem to be arguing that God cannot, therefore, exist.

Maybe because God can bring about an even greater good from the evil that exists. The worst crime in human history was the killing of the Son of God. God transformed this evil into the greatest good known to man. Salvation. So I would not agree with the premise of your argument.

I don't know with whom you are agreeing, but is isn't me. I don't buy into pre-mortal existence at all. But this proves my point that we will start talking past each other because we begin from completely different perspectives. You believe that you made the decision to be who you are before you were born. I don't. I was given the free gift of life for no other reason than God willed my existence so that he might love me and I might love him.

Maybe I should just give an example. Two people fall in love, get married, have children and live a wonderful life full of love and happiness. Another man decides, of his own free will, to get drunk and drive home. The couple's two year old runs into the street just as the dunk is driving by and is hit and killed. This devastates the family. The mother begins drinking in order to kill her pain and becomes unavailable to the other children and her husband. The Father cannot concentrate at work and looses his job. Long story short, the marriage ends up in divorce and the children are then raised in a broken family and scarred for life. All of this because of one man's choice to drink that day and drive home. What did God have to do with this situation? Should he then make us robots and not allow us to make choices based upon our free will? This is a true story by the way and happened to a family I know.

And so the drunk agreed that he would come to earth and kill the two year old and spend the rest of his life in prison, and the two year old agreed that she would be killed at the age of two which would devestate her entire family and thow it into complete disaray, not to mention that she would not be married for time and eternity in the temple and therefore attain the celestial kingdom, but because she chose this, everything is just fine. Sorry, I don't buy it. It lends itself to predestination in which we have no choice in this life; our station in life has been chosen before we are even born. I have even seen, on this forum, people justifying abortion as a choice made by the very one who is aborted, therefore concluding that it cannot be evil because the one being aborted chose to be aborted in their pre-mortal existence. If this is the case, then from what are we being saved? From the choice we made in our pre-mortal existence or from the choices we make in this life? The aborted child, however, has no choice in this life which would mean that she chose to become mortal but never to take her first breath. Why would anyone choose to do that? It defies reason.

Let us look at scripture - In particular Jeremiah 1:5

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

What choice or free will did Jeremiah have if G-d already determined his destiny and "ordained" what he would be?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us look at scripture - In particular Jeremiah 1:5

What choice or free will did Jeremiah have if G-d already determined his destiny and "ordained" what he would be?

The Traveler

God is eternal and lives in eternity. He is omniscient; he know everything that has ever happened and ever will happen because history unfolds at once before his eyes. So yes, he "knew" all of us before we were created. Now what choice did Jeremiah have? He had the choice to say either yes or no to what God had planned for him. God knew what his answer would be. It was the same with Mary. God had planned for eternity that Mary would be the mother of the Son of God. But she still had to say yes. God's plan did not take away her free will any more the he took away Jeremiah's free will, rather God incorporated their free will into his perfect plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is eternal and lives in eternity. He is omniscient; he know everything that has ever happened and ever will happen because history unfolds at once before his eyes. So yes, he "knew" all of us before we were created. Now what choice did Jeremiah have? He had the choice to say either yes or no to what God had planned for him. God knew what his answer would be. It was the same with Mary. God had planned for eternity that Mary would be the mother of the Son of God. But she still had to say yes. God's plan did not take away her free will any more the he took away Jeremiah's free will, rather God incorporated their free will into his perfect plan.

I agree with you - but we differ in when we said yes to validate G-d's plan. According to the scripture the decision was made final before birth and the individual was even sanctified and ordained before birth. The only way I can see the scripture true and our understanding correct is if we did say yes to the sanctification and ordination before we were born. Then it makes sense. If G-d acted to sanctify and ordain before it was agreed and Jeremiah said yes then (having the maturity and understanding to comprehend and to say yes) - then we did not have agency.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Interesting thread. Reading through it the thought that came to me about logic and reason

was, looking for purpose. Couldn't find any Scripture with the word logic, yet many of reason.

I was hoping more would be said about the subject of satans origin and purpose. I had asked on another thread about that. Understanding well that it is a controversial subject.

Just never heard anything on that from my RLDS background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Interesting thread. Reading through it the thought that came to me about logic and reason

was, looking for purpose. Couldn't find any Scripture with the word logic, yet many of reason.

I was hoping more would be said about the subject of satans origin and purpose. I had asked on another thread about that. Understanding well that it is a controversial subject.

Just never heard anything on that from my RLDS background.

The Catholic perspective is that Lucifer was created as the highest and most beautiful of angels. Angels, like humans, are rational beings with the gift of free will, though they are pure spirit, as opposed to physical beings such as humans. Lucifer, through his own will, refused to submit to God's plan of salvation for the simple reason that he would be subject to a God who lowered himself to become human. The scriptures tell us that we will be over the angels. This is something Lucifer could not accept and therefore he rebelled against God and 1/3 of the angels rebelled with him.

So satan's origin and purpose, like ours, was to love and worship the living God. Through his own free will he decided otherwise. We do the same, each and every time we sin, but we have been given the gift of "time" which allows us to repent and reconclile with God. Lucifer's decision was made in eternity and was immediate. His decision was eternal. So God did not create Lucifer for the purpose of bringing evil into the world any more than he created us so that we might sin. We were all created for the purpose of loving and worshiping God, but through our own choice, not because we are forced to do so. Given this choice, to love or not to love God, sin and death entered into our world requiring a Savior in order to accomplish God's plan.

The element, I believe, that causes the disconnect in our views is the notion of premortal existence as opposed to ex nihilo creation. If I am correct, the LDS position is that Lucifer, like us, existed from eternity, apart from God. The traditional Christian view is that Lucifer is a created spiritual being who did not exist until God created him and brought him into existence. The LDS argument is that if ex nihilo creation is true then God is responsible for the evil, after all he created the beings that commit evil with full knowledge that this would happen. The traditional Chrisitian view is that those who were created with free will are responsible for their own actions. God did not create us to be evil. He created us with free will so that we might love, even knowing that we might choose otherwise and commit evil.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you - but we differ in when we said yes to validate G-d's plan. According to the scripture the decision was made final before birth and the individual was even sanctified and ordained before birth. The only way I can see the scripture true and our understanding correct is if we did say yes to the sanctification and ordination before we were born. Then it makes sense. If G-d acted to sanctify and ordain before it was agreed and Jeremiah said yes then (having the maturity and understanding to comprehend and to say yes) - then we did not have agency.

The Traveler

Yes, this would be the difference in our views. I think premortal existence is the key to understanding most differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity and is the primary reason that we will probably never reconcile these differences. It is also something that is rarely taken into consideration when trying to understand each other's viewpoints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Catholic perspective is that Lucifer was created as the highest and most beautiful of angels. Angels, like humans, are rational beings with the gift of free will, though they are pure spirit, as opposed to physical beings such as humans. Lucifer, through his own will, refused to submit to God's plan of salvation for the simple reason that he would be subject to a God who lowered himself to become human. The scriptures tell us that we will be over the angels. This is something Lucifer could not accept and therefore he rebelled against God and 1/3 of the angels rebelled with him.

So satan's origin and purpose, like ours, was to love and worship the living God. Through his own free will he decided otherwise. We do the same, each and every time we sin, but we have been given the gift of "time" which allows us to repent and reconclile with God. Lucifer's decision was made in eternity and was immediate. His decision was eternal. So God did not create Lucifer for the purpose of bringing evil into the world any more than he created us so that we might sin. We were all created for the purpose of loving and worshiping God, but through our own choice, not because we are forced to do so. Given this choice, to love or not to love God, sin and death entered into our world requiring a Savior in order to accomplish God's plan.

The element, I believe, that causes the disconnect in our views is the notion of premortal existence as opposed to ex nihilo creation. If I am correct, the LDS position is that Lucifer, like us, existed from eternity, apart from God. The traditional Christian view is that Lucifer is a created spiritual being who did not exist until God created him and brought him into existence. The LDS argument is that if ex nihilo creation is true then God is responsible for the evil, after all he created the beings that commit evil with full knowledge that this would happen. The traditional Chrisitian view is that those who were created with free will are responsible for their own actions. God did not create us to be evil. He created us with free will so that we might love, even knowing that we might choose otherwise and commit evil.

Your explanation of the LDS view is mostly correct - But our view (at least mine) is that if G-d created and was the single cause of all parameters and elements of creation; then it is because of G-d that the "free will" given to some is different from the "free will" given to others. In other words we did not choose the free will to which we were created and G-d alone decided what would be our free will - and because he created different free will with each individual is the reason some choose good and some choose evil with their free will that was created for them specifically by G-d. The other possibility is that our free will was determined by random chance - but with G-d can there really be random chance? Especially if he knows the result before the random chance was allowed? If we say G-d created us and we chose our will - what was it in his creating that causes one to select the better or another the worse possibilities of free will?

Thus the great question - who or what created each individual's free will or parameters by which our free will in each individual is determined is selected? Something had to determine or cause that - and is not G-d the first cause of creation with ex nihilo creation? Who ever or what ever it is - should not that creator be what is responsible for that free will and whatever becomes because of it?

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your explanation of the LDS view is mostly correct - But our view (at least mine) is that if G-d created and was the single cause of all parameters and elements of creation; then it is because of G-d that the "free will" given to some is different from the "free will" given to others.

I don't understand this view at all. If one is "free" to makes one's own choices, how can that freedom vary from individual to individual. Freedom is a sate of being. When the slaves were freed, their freedom did not vary from slave to slave. When one has "free will" it means that we were created with a rational mind and are inherently capable of choosing one path or another. Now intellectual capacity certainly varies between people, but not their ability to make a choice concerning good and evil, relative to their intellect.

Maybe you could explain how free will can vary between people. Are you saying that a person with a mental impairment, for instance, is less capable of making choices than someone with a healthy mind? This is a truth that cannot be denied, however one's culpability regarding sin is also diminished to the extent that one is impaired. Many, if not most mentally impaired people are still capable of loving. One thing we do not have to worry about is God's incredible mercy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your explanation of the LDS view is mostly correct - But our view (at least mine) is that if G-d created and was the single cause of all parameters and elements of creation; then it is because of G-d that the "free will" given to some is different from the "free will" given to others. In other words we did not choose the free will to which we were created and G-d alone decided what would be our free will - and because he created different free will with each individual is the reason some choose good and some choose evil with their free will that was created for them specifically by G-d. The other possibility is that our free will was determined by random chance - but with G-d can there really be random chance? Especially if he knows the result before the random chance was allowed? If we say G-d created us and we chose our will - what was it in his creating that causes one to select the better or another the worse possibilities of free will?

Thus the great question - who or what created each individual's free will or parameters by which our free will in each individual is determined is selected? Something had to determine or cause that - and is not G-d the first cause of creation with ex nihilo creation? Who ever or what ever it is - should not that creator be what is responsible for that free will and whatever becomes because of it?

The Traveler

Free Will, or capacity to exercise free will?

(Defining Capacity as : Slavery in various forms, neurological/mental or emotional disorders or deficiencies, born only to die in infancy, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free Will, or capacity to exercise free will?

(Defining Capacity as : Slavery in various forms, neurological/mental or emotional disorders or deficiencies, born only to die in infancy, etc.)

Not sure where your logic is going. It appears to me that if we try to measure things as free will within the parameters of mortal life - I am not sure we have free will. For example, there are many circumstances where the choice to live or die is not really a choice we can make. Not sure if that is what you are implying.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where your logic is going. It appears to me that if we try to measure things as free will within the parameters of mortal life - I am not sure we have free will. For example, there are many circumstances where the choice to live or die is not really a choice we can make. Not sure if that is what you are implying.

The Traveler

Traveler, with all due respect I think it is you who needs to define what you are talking about when you speak of free will and your belief that free will varies between people. BadWolf is asking the same question I asked.

One other thing, using your example of choosing to live or die, are you saying that one's free will is impaired because someone may stop another from taking their own life? If one has chosen to die, they have excercised their free will whether or not they actually get to acconplish it. A better way to understand this is to look at the nature of sin. If one chooses to have a sexual relationship outside of their marriage but is prevented from doing so due to outside circumstances they have still sinned because they, of their own free will, chose to sin.

Maybe you could explain a little further.

Thanks.

If one attempts to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traveler, with all due respect I think it is you who needs to define what you are talking about when you speak of free will and your belief that free will varies between people. BadWolf is asking the same question I asked.

One other thing, using your example of choosing to live or die, are you saying that one's free will is impaired because someone may stop another from taking their own life? If one has chosen to die, they have excercised their free will whether or not they actually get to acconplish it. A better way to understand this is to look at the nature of sin. If one chooses to have a sexual relationship outside of their marriage but is prevented from doing so due to outside circumstances they have still sinned because they, of their own free will, chose to sin.

Maybe you could explain a little further.

Thanks.

If one attempts to

Will is the desire of a specific thing. It is not too difficult to define. Free will means the power to cause one's desire to come to pass. I do not define any possible choice as always being the expression of free will. For example if a group of terrorist took you family and said - you chose which family member we kill. You get to choose but of all the choices offered none are an actual expression of you will and desire because the reality is you want all your family members to be unharmed.

Many times in arguing one poses the possibility where the will of different individuals clash such that the expression of the will of one prevents the exercise of the will of the others. We see this in sports; where in order for one to win the other must lose. It is always the will of players to win - no one really desires to lose. If they did, I do not understand the purpose of playing.

If G-d created each individual and each individual’s desires then it was the desire that G-d created that seeks expression when free will is granted.

My point is that G-d did not create the essence of who we are and thus our desires are our desires because it is what we have always had (even before the creation of our physical bodies) as the core and essence of what defines us. Since we are what we always have been and thus G-d did not create our desire but gave us the possibility to express our desire by creating a physical tabernacle for our essence, our essence being that which he did not create.

Since G-d gave to us the power to express our essence in the use of our physical tabernacle that he created for us - we become responsible and accountable for the expression of that desire for which G-d did not create nor is in any way responsible.

Why is this concept so difficult to follow?

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free will means the power to cause one's desire to come to pass.

I would completely disagree with your definition. Free will is the rational ability to choose between good and evil. That is why a man is guilty of sin even though he has not carried out the act. For example, we can look at Jesus' words "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28) Free will was exercised even though the desire of that will was not attained, thus the man is guilty of adultery even though it was not committed in deed, but rather in desire.

Freedom to carry out one's will is a separate question. Being prevented from attaining the desire of one's will does not prevent one from choosing that which they desire.

If G-d created each individual and each individual’s desires then it was the desire that G-d created that seeks expression when free will is granted.

Ex nihilo creation does not assume that God created each individual's desire. The very definition of free will impies that each individual is responsible for their own desires because they are free beings. God did not create us and make us subject to desires which he created within us, as if we had no choice in the matter. Why is it so difficult to believe that God, being all-powerful, could not create a free being who makes his own choices and is responsible for his own choices?

My point is that G-d did not create the essence of who we are and thus our desires are our desires because it is what we have always had (even before the creation of our physical bodies) as the core and essence of what defines us. Since we are what we always have been and thus G-d did not create our desire but gave us the possibility to express our desire by creating a physical tabernacle for our essence, our essence being that which he did not create.

And once again it comes down to the issue of premortal existence. We will never agree on this issue and I think we've about beaten it to death. I do appreciate the conversation and sharing of our ideas and beliefs, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. It comes down to the most basic and fundamental beliefs about who we are and who God is and that is why premortal existence is a doctrine that separates the LDS from the rest of Christianity.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Ex nihilo creation does not assume that God created each individual's desire. The very definition of free will impies that each individual is responsible for their own desires because they are free beings. God did not create us and make us subject to desires which he created within us, as if we had no choice in the matter. Why is it so difficult to believe that God, being all-powerful, could not create a free being who makes his own choices and is responsible for his own choices?

....

The problem with that kind of thinking is that in the same manner one can argue; if G-d is all powerful and all knowing he could create free beings that would make good choices on their own.

Of course the answer is that he did not create such creatures. So now we much come up with a reason why. The reason I find attractive is that there was something that he did not create and therefore he is not responsible for what he did not create.

This is the essence of the "theory" of Ex nihilo - that G-d creates things for which he is not responsible - that makes that theory unacceptable (flawed) to me.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with that kind of thinking is that in the same manner one can argue; if G-d is all powerful and all knowing he could create free beings that would make good choices on their own.

Not so. If one can only make good choices he is not a free being, but rather a robot with no choice at all.

Of course the answer is that he did not create such creatures.

In your opinion

So now we much come up with a reason why. The reason I find attractive is that there was something that he did not create and therefore he is not responsible for what he did not create.

Well I'm glad you find it attrtactive. I find the idea to be heretical. The idea diminishes the power of God, as if there are things in this universe over which he has no control. The idea diminishes the glory and majesty of God as the only uncreated, eternal being.

This is the essence of the "theory" of Ex nihilo - that G-d creates things for which he is not responsible - that makes that theory unacceptable (flawed) to me.

Again, not true. God is responsible for the existence of mankind, and of everything that exists, except evil. God certainly, mysteriously, allows evil to exist. But the origin of evil is not God, but Lucifer, as a consequence of a choice made by his own free will to rebel against God. Evil is always a possibility among rational, free-willed beings. One might say that God created the possibility for evil to exist which is implicit in one being free to choose good or evil. But God does not create evil nor is ever complicit in evil. Evil comes from satan and the heart of man.

The "Good News" is that God, through the sacrifice and death of his only begotten Son, has defeated evil. We can be saved from our own evil, not through some sort of eternal progression, but by the grace of a loving God.

Edited by StephenVH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share