Who is God?


Christyba75
 Share

Recommended Posts

The gospel doesn't explain why things are they way they are, the gospel just states that it is and maybe goes one layer deep, but beyond that we kind of hit the dead end of "that's just the way God made it." How can God hear all our prayers at the same time? How can the personage of the Holy Ghost be felt everywhere at the same time? Why does God require that I worship him in order to be rewarded by him? I'm that annoying little kid who keeps asking why in response to every answer and am never satisfied with "just because that's the way God wants it to be and we have to trust that." In my quest for answers, the scientific theory is a great model for finding them. I'd just like to keep trying that model for the answer to existence and see if I can harmonize it with my Mormon theology. I really don't want to have to pick one over the other. I love them both and want them to fit each other.

The gospel does explain things. One needs eyes to see the divine light through the garments of flesh and forgetting. The gospel presents us not only with a genesis, that is, creation, but also an origin: where we are from; what brought us here; and where we return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think of the rock question as kind of ridiculous...the point is would He do it, not can he do it.

For example, can God lie? Well, of course He could, but He wouldn't because He is God. One thing He doesn't do (whether he can or not we don't know) is deny His own nature. He is truth and light and knowledge. He is not selfish, could He do selfish things, of course, but then He would be going against His own nature. Should is much more important than Can. Power isn't in being able to do something, but rather having the self discipline of only doing those things that you should do.

I could think of Him as an alien, not being born on Earth. But I would prefer to think of Him as that destination that we are all born to reach. After all, it is where we are headed that really matters, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe, as one of the early GAs said, that spirit is just a more refined version of matter. Maybe it's just a sheet of neutrinos or something like that. Or how about this? Maybe our "intelligence" was just a partition on a great bioneural harddrive that was each individually organized just enough to give us collective sentience, just enough for a portion of us to pick a corporeal existence and another portion of us to self-select for continuation in the ethereal state. We were being just in concept and architecture, much like how a CAD is of a real object, but without any real connection to each other; hence why we have no memory of this pre-mortal existence--the real reason that I don't remember it is because the mortal "I" didn't experience it. The consciousness that was is not the same consciousness that is. And when I die, I die. I really die forever. But my memories are transferred to the great harddrive in the sky (aka spirit prison or paradise) to await the wondrous creation of a new body which will house all my memories and then this new being will believe itself to be me! As far it it knows, it IS me. I will be her. (This begs the question, what is consciousness other than the sum of all one's memories).

Admittedly, a person does not evolve, but he can progress given enough time. Mortality does not afford us much time, but finding a way to become immortal, an individual could progress to become a god. (Isn't that what we teach at church). Sci-Fi literature is filled with stories about this.

No, our church does not teach this. We do not teach that becoming like God is something that is entirely achieved by individual achievement, we are taught that we are carried and advanced by the grace of God if we are worthy. There is a gifting process, the advancement is given or sometimes we use the word "inherited". The inheritance we receive by definition is something that is offered us if we are worthy. Worthiness is the requirement, not advancement in intelligence. The advancement in intelligence is what already took place. How many more years of advancement in intelligence do we need beyond the bazillions of years we spent in God's presence before coming here? Further advancements are in terms of spiritual worthiness and experience. It is not in terms of technology or scientific understanding. All of that, we will inherit. Just like when you use a textbook from the library, you have inherited years of knowledge in that book. You didn't personally advance that understanding on your own and yet it is used to push yourself further than your ancient ancestors had. Are you more intelligent than your ancient ancestors? If they had access to the textbooks and teachers and societal teaching etc, would they be less intelligent than you?

Satan tried to teach that we could do it on our own without God. He still tries to put that in our minds now. To suggest that we could do that is an idea that went out with the first estate test. You didn't believe that back when you passed the first estate test. It is just a matter of remembering what you previously believed. To access that requires spiritual influence, which is a very hard thing to do for all of us, that is what creates the test we face. If it was natural or easy to access that previous spiritual learning, there would be no test. It is natural to not remember.

Also, remember that our current state is temporary. How you are right now is not your true self. This is just a set of characteristics, personality, intelligence level all of which is described as your "stewardship". But this stewardship is temporary, a probationary state. The current level of intelligence was only meant as a temporary state. To appreciate this consider the Celestial spirits found in the bodies of those that have Down's syndrome, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the intolerance towards Christyba75's view. To me she is simply providing a hypothetical possibility as to how things might work. There is no intrinsic incompatibility with this discussion and focusing on the things of the gospel that actually save us. We can do both. Some of you guys are acting like it is a sin (or something close to a sin) for Christyba75 to speculate as to how reality actually functions.

I also think most folks are missing the point of the discussion. It seems like many on this thread are treating Christyba75's views as if she were trying to replace the gospel with these speculations. I don't believe she is advocating a replacement for the gospel. She is sharing a possible explanation as to how God does the things he does or how he is the way he is.

I think the overall point is that it is possible that there is some natural explanation to the phenomenon in the gospel that we often take for granted or accept on its face. So, for instance, instead of just saying the atonement saves us, we can speculate as to how the atonement is possible and if there is a way to explain the ontology of the atonement so as to fit it within a naturalistic perspective. I think it goes without saying that this isn't a necessity and pointing out the fact that these types of discussions are uncessary for salvation is special pleading and hypocritical AND irrelevant. We aren't limited to discussion and speculating about ONLY necessary things. Also, often these speculative discussions can produce profound thoughts that can add to the richness of one's belief system. So, my advice for those who have an issue with this thread is to not take part. There is nothing here, so far, that is intrinsically wrong or offensive.

I personally have no issues with pursuing the discussion for what it is.

Regards,

Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Seminarysnoozer. I hope that you have been well and are enjoying your day! :)

Worthiness is the requirement, not advancement in intelligence. The advancement in intelligence is what already took place. How many more years of advancement in intelligence do we need beyond the bazillions of years we spent in God's presence before coming here? Further advancements are in terms of spiritual worthiness and experience. It is not in terms of technology or scientific understanding. All of that, we will inherit. Just like when you use a textbook from the library, you have inherited years of knowledge in that book. You didn't personally advance that understanding on your own and yet it is used to push yourself further than your ancient ancestors had. Are you more intelligent than your ancient ancestors? If they had access to the textbooks and teachers and societal teaching etc, would they be less intelligent than you?

This is simply your opinion, Seminarysnoozer, because the gospel I know clearly teaches us that intelligence is the glory of God and that we are to increase in intelligence in this life and that any intelligence we attain in this life we will be able to take with us to the next. Further, the gospel I know teaches me that the intelligence I gain in this life will give me an advantage in the next life in so far as I will be further along in my progression. We will continue to advance in intelligence after the ressurrection. The gospel I know also clearly teaches that eternal life is to "know" God and his Son, Jesus. Knowledge is a function of intelligence.

Also, remember that our current state is temporary. How you are right now is not your true self. This is just a set of characteristics, personality, intelligence level all of which is described as your "stewardship". But this stewardship is temporary, a probationary state. The current level of intelligence was only meant as a temporary state. To appreciate this consider the Celestial spirits found in the bodies of those that have Down's syndrome, etc.

This is another speculation on your part. Your philosophy isn't far from the ancient neo-platonist. I know that I am my body and my spirit. The me who is me right now, is the real me. I have no doubt of it. In fact, the same me that exist, according to scripture, will be the same me that will exist after I die. Further, the gospel I know teaches me that a fullness of joy requires that spirit and matter be inseparably joined, which means that in reality I am not fully me without my physical body. Having our physical bodies makes us more complete, not less. Your philosophy is simply your interpretation of how things are based on how you've ordered and understood the world around you.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited by Finrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's absolute technobabble, but is it really any different that gospelbabble? I didn't mean that to sound disrespectful, but when viewed from a physical, natural, technical perspective, it then makes so many other things sound less important: 1950's standards of modesty, the temperature of one's caffeine, and ward-hopping at BYU.

I am well aware that there's no way to get definitive support for my "theory", I'm just looking for significant incompatibilities with LDS teachings. So far, haven't found any that are convincing to me.

As an scientist and engineer - I have attempted to engage you in discussion - but you have ignored my responses and questions. At this point I am not sure you are capable of utilizing scientific methods or demonstrating rhetorical analysis the subject you have suggested. My conclusion at this point is that you are not on a quest for discovery but rather an opportunity to argue - without the discipline of rhetorical logic.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[T]he gospel I know clearly teaches us that intelligence is the glory of God and that we are to increase in intelligence in this life and that any intelligence we attain in this life we will be able to take with us to the next. Further, the gospel I know teaches me that the intelligence I gain in this life will give me an advantage in the next life in so far as I will be further along in my progression. We will continue to advance in intelligence after the ressurrection. The gospel I know also clearly teaches that eternal life is to "know" God and his Son, Jesus. Knowledge is a function of intelligence.

The question then becomes: What is intelligence? Is it book-learning? Academic degrees? Encyclopedic command of facts? Rhetorical persuasive skills? Flawless logic? Some combination of these?

The scriptural definition of "intelligence" is "light and truth". The sciences do not deal with "truth"; they deal with models. There are a great many gospel topics I do not understand, including this one, but I feel quite sure that when the scriptures teach "The glory of God is intelligence," they are not talking about any sort of learning you pay to get at a state university.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question then becomes: What is intelligence? Is it book-learning? Academic degrees? Encyclopedic command of facts? Rhetorical persuasive skills? Flawless logic? Some combination of these?

The scriptural definition of "intelligence" is "light and truth". The sciences do not deal with "truth"; they deal with models. There are a great many gospel topics I do not understand, including this one, but I feel quite sure that when the scriptures teach "The glory of God is intelligence," they are not talking about any sort of learning you pay to get at a state university.

In the scientific community we define intelligence as the ability to demonstrate learning. One of the measurements or requirements for life as an acceptable measurement of intelligence or a conditional response demonstrating learning has taken place. I personally believe that G-d has the intelligence to pass and surpass any of the concepts attempting to be taught at any state university.

Actually G-d instructs that remaining teachable is a part of the gospel and even necessary for salvation - to become teachable even as a child. I would submit a quest for truth cannot in truth be separated into religious and secular truths as many try to justify their lack of hunger for truth. Thus that LDS see intelligence as the light of truth, I believe to be compelling to always be curious as a divine proclivity; I find to be quite exciting.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Seminarysnoozer. I hope that you have been well and are enjoying your day! :)

This is simply your opinion, Seminarysnoozer, because the gospel I know clearly teaches us that intelligence is the glory of God and that we are to increase in intelligence in this life and that any intelligence we attain in this life we will be able to take with us to the next. Further, the gospel I know teaches me that the intelligence I gain in this life will give me an advantage in the next life in so far as I will be further along in my progression. We will continue to advance in intelligence after the ressurrection. The gospel I know also clearly teaches that eternal life is to "know" God and his Son, Jesus. Knowledge is a function of intelligence.

This is another speculation on your part. Your philosophy isn't far from the ancient neo-platonist. I know that I am my body and my spirit. The me who is me right now, is the real me. I have no doubt of it. In fact, the same me that exist, according to scripture, will be the same me that will exist after I die. Further, the gospel I know teaches me that a fullness of joy requires that spirit and matter be inseparably joined, which means that in reality I am not fully me without my physical body. Having our physical bodies makes us more complete, not less. Your philosophy is simply your interpretation of how things are based on how you've ordered and understood the world around you.

Regards,

Finrock

Thanks for your kind reply,

I don't think I disagree with you if you take a close look at what the word "attain" means. I am simply pointing out the fact that we must have learned something over the bazillion of years we spent with our Heavenly Father learning all we could and becoming mature spirits before we came here. Yes it is my opinion to believe that we were not dumb as spirits. If I as a lowly and humble human being would consider if I even had a thousand years in the presence of God could learn a lot, probably more than any person on Earth could ever learn on their own even over 100,000 years then why could I not believe that as a spirit for an even longer period of time we have learned all science, all math, all biology, all astronomy, all physics, all social sciences etc. I don't think we just sat around. This is a belief that comes from an understanding of the plan of salvation which is to have an understanding of what happened before this world began. Of course I don't know the details but I would have a hard time being convinced that we learned less than what we could learn here in 80 to 90 years of human being life.

So when you say "attain" that is in comparison to what we had before, not in relation to what we start out in this life with. The attainment of intelligence that is spoken of there is in relation to the things we couldn't learn without a body. I doubt that includes things like physics, mathematics, astronomy, biology facts, etc. Did we learn how to choose properly between carnal temptations and influences of the spirit? No. So, any attainment of those types of things will be counted as above what we learned before and that will stay with us. I think it is a narrowed view to thing that we did not learn many secular things (more than man could ever learn) before coming here and that that knowledge will flood back to us after the second estate is over.

.... please explain the "same me" idea in regard to someone that has Down's syndrome. I think you will conclude that the body of that person is not the "same me". This is a temporary existence, if you have insight of how you were before in comparison to how you are now then you have been given a gift that very few have as most of us have a veil over that kind of understanding.

Edited by Seminarysnoozer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If He is omnipresent, then how could one enter His presence or be cast out of His presence? Neither would be possible. One could gain knowledge of God, but never proximity. Kind of like a dad you could skype with but never meet.

Remember that we believe God is Spirit and does not have a corporeal body. The Bible is full references to those came into God's presence (Isaiah) and who left it (King Saul). Being in or out of God's presence has more to do with our free will (agency) than with where God is or isn't. Ironically, some have described both hell and evil as any place or situation where God's favor is not.

As far as beginning and end, He doesnt need either. I consider myself to be without beginning or end, although I have a birth date. So you are right, true origin can't be located, because there is none. Only events (birth) can be located.

Your observation shows that a fuller understanding of who God is comes by knowing who we are. Are we created out of nothing with a definite start point to our existence (traditional teaching)? Or, are we beings with an eternal aspect that God fashioned into human existence? The answer would seem to inform our understanding of how we relate to God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the intolerance towards Christyba75's view. To me she is simply providing a hypothetical possibility as to how things might work. There is no intrinsic incompatibility with this discussion and focusing on the things of the gospel that actually save us. We can do both. Some of you guys are acting like it is a sin (or something close to a sin) for Christyba75 to speculate as to how reality actually functions.

I also think most folks are missing the point of the discussion. It seems like many on this thread are treating Christyba75's views as if she were trying to replace the gospel with these speculations. I don't believe she is advocating a replacement for the gospel. She is sharing a possible explanation as to how God does the things he does or how he is the way he is.

I think the overall point is that it is possible that there is some natural explanation to the phenomenon in the gospel that we often take for granted or accept on its face. So, for instance, instead of just saying the atonement saves us, we can speculate as to how the atonement is possible and if there is a way to explain the ontology of the atonement so as to fit it within a naturalistic perspective. I think it goes without saying that this isn't a necessity and pointing out the fact that these types of discussions are uncessary for salvation is special pleading and hypocritical AND irrelevant. We aren't limited to discussion and speculating about ONLY necessary things. Also, often these speculative discussions can produce profound thoughts that can add to the richness of one's belief system. So, my advice for those who have an issue with this thread is to not take part. There is nothing here, so far, that is intrinsically wrong or offensive.

I personally have no issues with pursuing the discussion for what it is.

Regards,

Finrock

Thank you. You said it best--I'm just speculating. That's all. Just looking for incompatibilities. I think the real concern and threat to many is that if my suggestions are not incompatible with Mormon doctrine, then this model is workable both for Mormons and atheists. If the LDS God and his functions can exist within the universe and within its laws, then there is no need to require an unknowable supernatural explanation. I don't see why we have to push God outside our universe. Catholicism makes him an unknowable god without body, parts, or passions who is in everything and everywhere. Mormon's make him more knowable. Why can't we then go one step further and consider him material and real?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not what to start a discussion that cannot possibly ever have an actual conclusion - but I have never understood from the traditionalists point of view - what is there about G-d that he does not want mankind to emulate of him in the same manner that G-d conducts his affairs? As near as I can currently understand - everything and every attribute G-d would be pleased that we emulate such things - even out of the same love and compassion that he does.

The Traveler

Who are we? Are we the literal children of God--descendants? Or, are we the highest of his creations, distinct from God, yet highly treasured? If the former than exaltation would be the only goal in life worth pursuing. Such would be the fulfillment of my destiny. If the latter, than my goal would be to fulfill his greatest dream for me--to become the fullness of what he has created me to be.

Both ends are glorious...but the differences certainly do inform our understanding of who God is and what our relationship with him is. I agree that it is useless to argue which would be better. Better to know which is most accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. You said it best--I'm just speculating. That's all. Just looking for incompatibilities. I think the real concern and threat to many is that if my suggestions are not incompatible with Mormon doctrine, then this model is workable both for Mormons and atheists. If the LDS God and his functions can exist within the universe and within its laws, then there is no need to require an unknowable supernatural explanation. I don't see why we have to push God outside our universe. Catholicism makes him an unknowable god without body, parts, or passions who is in everything and everywhere. Mormon's make him more knowable. Why can't we then go one step further and consider him material and real?

Do you really believe that God is this universe? To God our universe and His may co-exist and that is likely how He views it, I don't know. But when you say our universe, as in the one that we can see, touch and interact with right now through physical means and experience, I don't think He is in that universe, at least not all the time.

Do you not believe that there are heavenly realms that are unreachable by man on his own? My understanding of LDS belief as far as that goes is that the spirit matter in which God exists is different from our own. As Brigham Young stated; "Spirits are just as familiar with spirits as bodies are with bodies, though spirits are composed of matter so refined as not to be tangible to this coarser organization."

“Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the LDS God and his functions can exist within the universe and within its laws, then there is no need to require an unknowable supernatural explanation. I don't see why we have to push God outside our universe.

The main reason I see for pushing God outside the universe is that God created the universe. If God is merely a more intelligent, more advanced citizen of this universe, it becomes harder to for me to envision Him creating the universe. For me, it is easier to envision God creating the universe if He exists outside of the universe. It is possible that He can create the universe from within the universe, but it is harder for me to visualize.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

God has a physical body, so it must occupy physical space. So if the universe is defined as that which contains everything, then God must be in the universe. The only way for God to be outside of the universe is for him to be not real, and since we claim him to be real, he must be in the universe. The reality of God and his physical body is a core doctrine of Mormon theology. I believe that this doctrine takes precedence over whether or not he created the entire universe or just our part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God has a physical body, so it must occupy physical space. So if the universe is defined as that which contains everything, then God must be in the universe. The only way for God to be outside of the universe is for him to be not real, and since we claim him to be real, he must be in the universe. The reality of God and his physical body is a core doctrine of Mormon theology. I believe that this doctrine takes precedence over whether or not he created the entire universe or just our part of it.

This is an example of a term ("universe") having an original literal meaning, being applied widely, and then superseded by a new paradigm (multiple universes? a contradiction in terms! unless you posit parallel realities, each of which encompasses a discrete "universe"). I don't know if the "multiverse" idea, or any idea of God standing outside his creation, makes sense or not, but it is reasonable to conjecture such things and use current terminology to describe them.

In fact, our understanding of the nature of physical reality is quite limited. Cosmologists themselves do not understand it, probably in large part because, as in the case of biogenesis, they have left the realm of hard science and have entered into a much squishier and more philosophical realm similar to some sort of metascience, where they are trying not only to figure out what happened but account for the very realities of science they are attempting to find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are we? Are we the literal children of God--descendants? Or, are we the highest of his creations, distinct from God, yet highly treasured? If the former than exaltation would be the only goal in life worth pursuing. Such would be the fulfillment of my destiny. If the latter, than my goal would be to fulfill his greatest dream for me--to become the fullness of what he has created me to be.

Both ends are glorious...but the differences certainly do inform our understanding of who God is and what our relationship with him is. I agree that it is useless to argue which would be better. Better to know which is most accurate.

We are the children of G-d - I believe that statement has both literal and symbolic meaning.

But there is another question - Did G-d deliberately and intentionally create man to be forever inferior to him? And then expect us to be equal to him in rejecting sin? So if we fail; whose fault is it? Those that do not measure up or the creator the deliberately made sure that we could not ever in all eternity measure up?

Of course the question is a trick question. The flaw in the question is that we were not created inferior to G-d - as his children we are in his likeness and image and by our heritage destined to be "one" with all our Father is and has.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When one says that we are "literally" children of God, what does that literally mean? The only parent-child definition we know of is that in this world. Did we or a spiritual portion of me come out of a heavenly mother? If not, then how do you define child? Why are we his children? Just because the prophet says it? I like the Father concept, but how does it really apply to the relationship that I have with God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there is another question - Did G-d deliberately and intentionally create man to be forever inferior to him? And then expect us to be equal to him in rejecting sin? So if we fail; whose fault is it? Those that do not measure up or the creator the deliberately made sure that we could not ever in all eternity measure up?

Of course the question is a trick question. The flaw in the question is that we were not created inferior to G-d - as his children we are in his likeness and image and by our heritage destined to be "one" with all our Father is and has.

The Traveler

Why this obsession with our rank order in comparison to our Creator? When I post this, will the post curse me because it can never be what I am? Does a painting curse the artist because it can never be one? Do I blame my mother because I cannot cook like her? It seems to me to be a futile exercise for me to query my Heavenly Father because I cannot be a Heavenly Father. I am thankful for the role I have, and honored to be in God's eternal service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why this obsession with our rank order in comparison to our Creator? When I post this, will the post curse me because it can never be what I am? Does a painting curse the artist because it can never be one? Do I blame my mother because I cannot cook like her? It seems to me to be a futile exercise for me to query my Heavenly Father because I cannot be a Heavenly Father. I am thankful for the role I have, and honored to be in God's eternal service.

I would say we are obsessed with relationship, not rank. When you created your post and your painting did you command it to be like you? I dont see anyone blaming Heavenly Father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If relationship is the issue, then either view can lead to intimacy. I worship, adore, and commune with my Creator. God is my Father, Jesus my Savior and friend. I do expect to be glorified. So long as we are confident that we correctly understand our relationship, I am not sure that either of our views would hinder our relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a life-long member, and I'm also a scientist who tries to make everything fit. I'd like to propose a model for the plan of salvation which works within the framework of scientific possibility. Then I invite everyone try to poke holes in it and find conflicts with the scriptures and Church doctrine.

First, I'd like to suggest that the scriptures aren't 100% historically accurate. Did the flood cover the peaks of every mountain on earth? Did the star stay in the same position above Bethlehem at all times? Did people live 900 years? I'm one of those who thinks that some biblical stories may be more allegorical than literal.

Second, we understand that the words of the scriptures were inspired, not usually handed to man word-for-word in English, so the phrasing may be a partial product of the mind of the prophet.

Third, I don't sleep well believing in paradoxes: can God make a rock so big that even he can't lift it? I say he can't. Even Cleon Skousen says that there are things God can't do.

So, here's the postulate. I'm sure that I'm not the first one to suggest this, and maybe if I searched harder, I could find others who believe this. God is an alien. He's an ancient astronaut. He is a member of a civilization with our same/similar DNA who when he said, "yonder is matter unorganized" was so very technologically advanced that they could do terra forming and start life on new planets. They have harnessed the ability to "read minds" (sense EEG wave forms at a distance) and preserve individual consciousnesses after death, and then transfer the individual's memories into an advanced body which is not subject to mortal decay. God and his society have rules and regulations (which we call commandments) for advancement.

Before you think me a nut job, please consider that this IS what we believe but we say it using Victorian English and limiting ourselves to ancient phrasing so that it sounds more pious to our ears. But from a 21st century viewpoint, isn't this what we believe?

Your turn. I want to hear it.

Hello, Christy;

I know you've commented since this first post. I'm answering with my first reaction to your topic. Please know I'm not trying to be difficult or put down in any way your ideas.

I do have a hard time with them. Here is why. First of all, I hate trying to "scientifically" prove the existence of God or approach any of His/LDS/Christian teachings in this manner. Why? I tend to agree with you that a lot of the stories in the Bible are not literal; but, more allegorical. Trying to explain an Infinite Being way beyond anyone/anything in intelligence and anything we could possibly understand in this life becomes a moot point. Whether or not I'm a literal daughter of God, or if people literally lived 900 years or if the star of Bethlehem moved/didn't move, etc., etc., really isn't central to my faith.

What is important to my faith is that I have a Creator; I am His created. That He goes so far as to say He fathered me, i.e, I am created in the likeness of His image. That in all respects, He is superior to me. Which superiority deserves heeding His commandment that I worship Him. That He loves me/knows me/will direct me through my path in life if I invite Him to do so. That being obedient to Him is a wise thing to do......

The reason why I italicized and underlined the word "faith" up above is for this point. I believe that God intends for us to not be able to prove His existence through our limited/relatively ignorant scientific methods. I believe He intends this so we will not rely on our own understanding/arm to come unto Him. But, rather, to attempt to go within our very irrational/emotional hearts and learn to feel the Holy Ghost testify and witness to us the great eternal truths that are His to give in His way, time and pleasure. Those truths that are necessary to bring us back into His presence.

Please don't get me wrong. True science will never contradict the reality of His existence. I just believe that He intentionally limits our scientific methods to keep us from proving Him absolutely in order for us to utilize our faith.

Also, realizing our relationship to God is critical in this process. Meaning; we are in no way His equal in any comparison. Thus the need for humility. I've wrestled with this at times. Knowing that I don't know, nor is it mine to know Him; yet, He knows me. To counsel Him not; but, to take counsel from His hand. To alway acknowledge His omniscience, omnipresence, omni-whatever, perfectness; His infiniteness and my own very finite, limited, incapable and fallen state. The scriptures are replete with His characteristics and attributes and our relation to Him. In this and a spiritual way the scriptures are golden in our journey to appropriately approaching Him (coming unto Him) and following His commandments for us.

So, to me, a "scientific" approach to God is pretty much a paradox and infinitely ineffective to truly coming to know Him......

But, I'm sorry if I rained on your parade. Please don't let my comment keep you from what you have wanted/intended in beginning this topic. Which may be a rousing and interesting debate as to what's what in the superfluous doctrines.

Best of wishes in your journey to know God.

Dove

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