Spirit Matter

[justinc]

Do I believe spiritual and physical are the same thing, No

This demonstrates the point I was making, thanks for clarifying.

[Anddenex]

This demonstrates the point I was making, thanks for clarifying.

This demonstrates the assumption you were making.

[Traveler]

By which natural law did Jesus come back from the dead? Your making the claim that it can happen Scientifically, what evidence is there that such is possible?

Anything that can happen can be engineered to happen. It is a matter of controlling the parameters. How well to you understand fractals and Chaos Theory to describe complex events or systems?

I would say God is not a hypocrite.

Hypocritical: "behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case"

Hypocrisy: "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case"

I would say God is not "claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case" rather God does actually have "higher standards and more noble beliefs".

You do not see the rhetorical flaw in your argument?

Have to agree to disagree on this one since you believe God is subject to and uses science whereas I believe God created science and laws.

I can understand - It is very common and tempting for men to worship such contradictions in order to justify breaking principles and laws themselves when they so desire.

On your view, When Polygamy became illegal did God not change his mind about polygamy due to circumstance?

Not at all - the principles by which G-d governs are very often not understood by men and thus appear to be conntradictory or that G-d would violate his own laws when ever he wishes. We should understand that G-d did not scatter ancient Israel among the Gentiles because he wanted to or needed to change his laws and principles but because his laws required it. Another example will be the final judgment - Even though G-d would that all men would come unto him - his righteous laws and the principles by which he governs cannot be broken and therefore require that he judge accordingly and cast out those so required by his already defined principles and laws.

BTW - I would be most interested where you acquired the notion that G-d's principles and laws (work) can be broken? Can you provide for me such a scripture?

The Traveler

Edited May 18, 2013 by Traveler

[justinc]

Anything that can happen can be engineered to happen. It is a matter of controlling the parameters. How well to you understand fractals and Chaos Theory to describe complex events or systems?

Please share.

You do not see the rhetorical flaw in your argument?

Please explain?

Since hypocrisy is "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case" I would say God is not claiming higher "than is the case" rather God is actually higher and more noble in reality. Do you disagree? Is God claiming to be higher and more noble then he really is?

It is very common and tempting for men to worship such contradictions in order to justify breaking principles and laws themselves when they so desire.

Are you accusing me of believing God is not bound by the laws of nature as justification for breaking commandments?

I would be most interested where you acquired the notion that G-d's principles and laws (work) can be broken?

Maybe you have misunderstood. What I am saying is that God is not bound by the laws of nature. (Obviously our views will differ since you believe God is material). For me it seems that if God created the laws of nature then I see no reason that he couldn't intervene in creation where he sees fit. The notion of an embodied God subject to the laws of nature seems limited in what he can actually do.

Our views on whether God created the laws of nature or is instead bound by them will inevitably differ at Creation Ex Nihilo. If God created the Universe then he created natural law and therefore transcends it. If God only exists within the Universe he too is subject to natural law.

Edited May 19, 2013 by justinc

[Traveler]

Please share.

Hmmmmm - I am not sure you have any idea what you are asking. This is hardly a matter for internet banter - I suggest you go to Amazon and search for books on Chaos theory. I would recommend " Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry and Engineering (Studies in Nonlinearity)".

Please explain?

It does not matter how high a standard is - if G-d is not subject to any standard - then it cannot be because there is a higher standard.

Since hypocrisy is "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case" I would say God is not claiming higher "than is the case" rather God is actually higher and more noble in reality. Do you disagree? Is God claiming to be higher and more noble then he really is?

Are you accusing me of believing God is not bound by the laws of nature as justification for breaking commandments?

In essence your word selection is poor. It is like asking if someone has quit beating their wife yet? If G-d is the creator then the laws of nature are no different than his commandments but are rather a subset of his commandments. If his commandments are good and not evil then if the scriptures are true in claiming that G-d is good - then his commandments are good and he would abide by his own commandments.

Let me give another example. Let us consider the covenant of marriage. If one person makes a selection of who they will marry and then claims not to be subject to the laws and principles of marriage - then there are only two possibilities to justify such action. Either the choice to marry was flawed or the principles and laws of marriage are flawed. In any case in order to justify not being subject to the laws and principles of marriage - the choice to marry must - by definition be a bad choice. Thus if someone chooses the laws and principles of marriage then decides not to be subject to those laws and principles - the only possibility is that somewhere there was a bad choice.

Maybe you have misunderstood. What I am saying is that God is not bound by the laws of nature. (Obviously our views will differ since you believe God is material). For me it seems that if God created the laws of nature then I see no reason that he couldn't intervene in creation where he sees fit. The notion of an embodied God subject to the laws of nature seems limited in what he can actually do.

embodied has nothing to do with choice. If someone reneges on a choice - which is in essence the attempt to reverse a choice or as you say "not be subject to that choice one had made"; then there must be reason. Either the initial choice was not understood correctly or it was in essence not really a choice and now the choice is actually taking place. I do not accept either as an attribute of the G-d I worship.

Our views on whether God created the laws of nature or is instead bound by them will inevitably differ at Creation Ex Nihilo. If God created the Universe then he created natural law and therefore transcends it. If God only exists within the Universe he too is subject to natural law.

You have not answered the question that I keep asking about creation ex nihilo. If G-d is not a respecter of persons (which means that G-d does for one what he does for all) how is it that man (persons) are different? So different that one person is saved and another is d---ed. If G-d if the first cause of creation - what is the initial cause of difference?

The Traveler

[justinc]

It does not matter how high a standard is - if G-d is not subject to any standard - then it cannot be because there is a higher standard.

In essence your word selection is poor. It is like asking if someone has quit beating their wife yet? If G-d is the creator then the laws of nature are no different than his commandments but are rather a subset of his commandments. If his commandments are good and not evil then if the scriptures are true in claiming that G-d is good - then his commandments are good and he would abide by his own commandments.

Read carefully Anddenex, Traveler has raised an objection to the moral argument for Gods existence that we both adhere to.

Here is the moral argument I shared earlier "Imagine that only a Jew and a Nazi exist. The Jew believes that murder is wrong, the Nazi believes it is right to kill the Jew. If the Nazi kills the Jew is it right or is it wrong? Since the Jew is dead, the Nazi has the only perspective, namely that it was right to murder the Jew. If God exists then the Nazi is wrong since God is the foundation we can turn to as the ultimate objective source of morality."

P1: If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist

P2: Objective morality does exist

C: Therefore God exists

Traveler has raised some interesting questions about God keeping his own commandments etc. In essence we may ask the question:

By what standard is God good?

If God is good based on some external standard then we don't need God since the moral standard exists apart from him. Thus God is not required for morality and premise 1 fails.

If God is good because God defined good in a way that fits who he is then morality is arbitrary and not objective - indeed another set of moral conditions could equally apply. Thus morality is not objective and premise 2 fails.

The third option is that God is what we call "the good." God is the paradigm of goodness and anything which does not conform to his good nature is what is "evil". On this view God is not just loving, but "God is love" (1 John 4:8). This is the view I hold. Simply God by his very nature is good. We may trust that he can't commit evil since it would be against his very nature - it is inconceivable that he might commit evil. We can trust that God will give us truth because he "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2).

My question Anddenex is, can the Latter-day Saint affirm the third option? It seems that on the LDS view God is subject to some external moral law - option 1 - and if God is subject to some external moral law he is not required for morality to exist - defeating premise 1.

If someone reneges on a choice - which is in essence the attempt to reverse a choice or as you say "not be subject to that choice one had made"; then there must be reason. Either the initial choice was not understood correctly or it was in essence not really a choice and now the choice is actually taking place.

I said that I believe that God establishes natural law (the way things normally work) but God can interfere in the way things normally work to bring about some other result. Normally after three days people stay dead, however God intervened and brought Jesus back from the dead. I believe in a God which is supernatural. You believe God is natural. What more is there to say, we can probably drop this one now. Running in circles.

If G-d is not a respecter of persons (which means that G-d does for one what he does for all) how is it that man (persons) are different? So different that one person is saved and another is d---ed. If G-d if the first cause of creation - what is the initial cause of difference?

You are not fully quoting Acts 10:34 - "God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." What this is saying is that God will allow people from all nations to come to him.

God can create us all differently. We all have different Chemistry, Connections, Circumstances & Consciousness but it is what we do with our free will that God will judge us by. Some people will experience harder lives then others, its what we CHOOSE to do with what we are given that counts. So God can easily create us as different persons out of nothing. There is no logical problem.

God is worthy of "glory and honour and power" because he has "created all things" (see Revelations 4:11) But if God created all things that entails that nothing existed apart from him prior to creation. For there were no preexisting materials, he created all.

[Seminarysnoozer]

You are not fully quoting Acts 10:34 - "God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." What this is saying is that God will allow people from all nations to come to him.

God can create us all differently. We all have different Chemistry, Connections, Circumstances & Consciousness but it is what we do with our free will that God will judge us by. Some people will experience harder lives then others, its what we CHOOSE to do with what we are given that counts. So God can easily create us as different persons out of nothing. There is no logical problem.

God is worthy of "glory and honour and power" because he has "created all things" (see Revelations 4:11) But if God created all things that entails that nothing existed apart from him prior to creation. For there were no preexisting materials, he created all.

The thing that you are not taking into account is that we are dual beings both body and spirit while here. The spirit existed previously and the body is 'created' from the effects of the Fall of Adam (God having made a perfect body first). Difference is 'created' from the effects of the Fall. After the Fall there is variability with the associated different chemistry, connections, circumstances etc. Joseph Smith clearly taught that the spirit is inherently innocent. We believe that God does allow all people of all nations come to Him. If they did not have an opportunity to hear of the gospel it will be delivered to them in the next life, in spirit prison.

[Guest Patric7olicoe]

I hold to the classical Christian view that the Spirit is immaterial.

[Upcountry]

We (LDS) believe that we were spirits in the pre-existence along with Jesus and Lucifer. We had no bodies and could not affect the physical world.

Although Jesus created the world, he always had to use the power of the Father (a physical being) since as a spirit he had no command over physical matter - only command over ideas. One might argue that spirits cannot sin since they cannot directly affect the free agency of another. That is why they could live with the Father and eat at His table even though they were not perfect.

We believe we came to earth to gain a physical body which we probably gain at first breath (which is why stillborn babies are not sealed). Even though spirit is a finer form of physical matter, it is a mistake to have to believe that the two types of matter are connected one to one. The movie "Avatar" is an imaginative example of one scenario. There are many others. String Theory maintains matter has 10 dimensions + time.

The two types of matter (spirit and physical) are not connected until the resurrection. Our mortal body is a temporary flesh and blood representation of our resurrected body. If this is not so, how would a vaporized body be resurrected. Jesus was beaten in his earthly representation.

The question does not matter as was pointed out above. All that matters is that the Atonement allowed all of us born of woman (including Jesus) to be resurrected. That is what is meant by that to be redeemed from the curse changing Adam from flesh and bone to the mortal body of flesh and blood. (Flesh and Blood bodies require food. In Eden what did the lion eat? Hence, they were probably flesh and bone bodies that were changed by the curse when Adam fell.) That is why Satan could promise to redeem us all that one soul shall not be lost - a truly subtle lie. A lie that took 1/3 of our brothers with him.

Satan, who chose not to have a physical body, will not be resurrected since he will not be born again. Baptism seems to be another ordinance that is absolutely necessary to be saved. Why this is we do not know. But the choice for baptism must be freely made by each individual just like Jesus had to choose the Atonement with His free Agency. And baptism must be performed correctly in form and with priesthood authority to have any effect.

That is my opinion.

Upcountry