Non-LDS view of God

[LeSellers]

Scripture says that God created everything.

Please show the scriptures that tell us that God created everything.

Besides, what does it mean "to create"?

There is a scripture that says that God created everything that was created, strongly implying that there are things that were not created.

Lehi

[Maureen]

Please show the scriptures that tell us that God created everything.

 

All things were created  by him, and apart from him not one thing was created  that has been created. (John 1:3)

 

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn  over all creation,  for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him - all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions,  whether principalities or powers – all things were created through him and for him. (Colossians 1:16)

 

(NET Bible)

 

M.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Maureen

[Maureen]

So, God created the devil and his angels. Did He create them out of love or hate?

 

Are you unfamiliar with how the devil and his angels came into being?

 

M.

[Jane_Doe]

Are you unfamiliar with how the devil and his angels came into being?

 

M.

 

The LDS view of devils and angels is very different than the Protestant one.

[Maureen]

The LDS view of devils and angels is very different than the Protestant one.

 

I'm thinking more of how Lehi would understand the devil.

 

DEVIL ...He is literally a spirit son of God and was at one time an angel in authority in the presence of God

 

In Mormon theology I'm assuming at one time the devil was considered a member of the family of God before he rebelled. Did God not love all his spirit children in the pre-existence?

 

M.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Maureen

[Jane_Doe]

I'm thinking more of how Lehi would understand the devil.

 

DEVIL ...He is literally a spirit son of God and was at one time an angel in authority in the presence of God

 

In Mormon theology I'm assuming at one time the devil was considered a member of the family of God before he rebelled. Did God not love all his spirit children in the pre-existence?

 

M.

 

The LDS view is that ALL beings are children of the Father: humans, angels, demons, etc are just different roles.  We were all spirit children of the Father before this world was made.  The beings which choose to rebel against the Father before this world were made, led by Lucifer, were cast out.  

 

But isn't the Protestant view different?  They have no concept of the pre-mortal life, say God didn't make demons (where else did they come from?), etc.  Truthfully I've never really understood it.

[blueskye]

The LDS view is that ALL beings are children of the Father: humans, angels, demons, etc are just different roles.  We were all spirit children of the Father before this world was made.  The beings which choose to rebel against the Father before this world were made, led by Lucifer, were cast out.  

 

But isn't the Protestant view different?  They have no concept of the pre-mortal life, say God didn't make demons (where else did they come from?), etc.  Truthfully I've never really understood it.

Angels were created before humans, so do pre-exist humans, though by how long is not revealed in scripture. Also, being heavenly creatures, time is relevant, or irrelevant.

One third of the angelic host fell, and are called demons.

Mormonism is the only religion I know of that teaches angels are pre-existing humans and the spirits of the dead.

[blueskye]

If, as you believe, He created us to love us, why did He create Hell? Why did He give us agency? (Even if it was so those who worship Him forever will not be simple slaves, this is still megalomania.)

Even in a non-Calvinist theology, the God Who created people, knowing the the majority of us will end up in an eternal pit of fire, where we will never die, but always suffer, must be a cruel God, a vicious God, a sadistic God.

If He didn't know, He would not be omniscient. If He did, He's a monster.

The problem of evil has never been resolved under orthodox theology, it cannot be.

Lehi

A lot of begging the question!

Is hell a created place? Maybe?

Theologically, hell is an absence of God. It is simply logic, that if one is not in heaven, in the presence of God, then one is in a state where God is absent.

Free will is given to us in order that we may live God freely. Love that is forced, is not love. This argument that God should force everyone to love Him is always odd to me.

What is monstrous about allowing a person to love someone? Choosing to not love God, is a choice made and therefore hell is a choice that is made. God does not send anyone to hell, it is what a person chooses,

Where do you get the idea most people will go to hell? It is not an orthodox teaching. Calvinism is not orthodox.

[Guest]

What is monstrous about allowing a person to love someone? Choosing to not love God, is a choice made and therefore hell is a choice that is made. God does not send anyone to hell, it is what a person chooses,

 

 

The argument is not whose choice it is to separate from the Father.  The argument is that in giving the choice, God knows there will be those that will be in hell.  So, the contradiction lies in a God who created people from nothing out of love knowing that they will be in hell.  The premise is that being in a state of nothingness is better than being in a state of hell.  The only resolution to the contradiction is to not have created.  So, the "creation out of love" is questionable under this concept.

Edited December 2, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

The argument is not whose choice it is to separate from the Father.  The argument is that in giving the choice, God knows there will be those that will be in hell.  So, the contradiction lies in a God who created people from nothing out of love knowing that they will be in hell.  The premise is that being in a state of nothingness is better than being in a state of hell.  The only resolution to the contradiction is to not have created.  So, the "creation out of love" is questionable under this concept.

 

Well, there is one other resolution: That existence, even in eternal misery and suffering, is better than non-existence. Not sure how one would establish this as true, since the two are utterly unlike and therefore impossible to compare.

[Guest]

Well, there is one other resolution: That existence, even in eternal misery and suffering, is better than non-existence.

 

This is the exact opposite of what JWs believe.  Hell is simply non-existence to them.  So, in answer to Lehi's position, the JWs position make a lot of sense.  We, of course, have a different view.

[blueskye]

The argument is not whose choice it is to separate from the Father. The argument is that in giving the choice, God knows there will be those that will be in hell. So, the contradiction lies in a God who created people from nothing out of love knowing that they will be in hell. The premise is that being in a state of nothingness is better than being in a state of hell. The only resolution to the contradiction is to not have created. So, the "creation out of love" is questionable under this concept.

This is a view that reflects a trend in our society, that view being, it is better to not be born at all than to suffer. And, it is better to die than to suffer. I don't share this view.

God created us destined for Himself. Twisting this gift as something not of value, is diabolical in nature. I hope you understand, these types of arguments come from those who do not love God.

Edited December 3, 2015 by blueskye

[Guest]

This is a view that reflects a trend in our society, that view being, it is better to not be born at all than to suffer. And, it is better to die than to suffer. I don't share this view.

God created us destined for Himself. Twisting this gift as something not of value, is diabolical in nature. I hope you understand, these types of arguments come from those who do not love God.

 

Who's twisting this gift?  I'm afraid this is a statement that reflects how wide the gulf of misunderstanding that is being laid before us.  This statement makes no sense to me.  But for you it is obvious.

 

The argument from this side is not necessarily that "it is better to not be born at all than to suffer."  While that sentiment is present, it is not the end of the argument. 

 

Let's look at it in a catechism style. (What I believe are your answers based on what you've posted already--correct me if I'm wrong).

 

1) Did he or did he not create every one of us?  YES.

2) Did he or did he not know that some of his creations would end up going to hell?  YES.

3) Did he or did he not create us to be "destined for Himself"?  YES

4) Is God an imperfect being?  NO

6) Is God an imperfect creator?  NO

7) If He created us destined for Himself, and He creates things perfectly, how do some find their destiny in hell???

Edited December 3, 2015 by Guest

[blueskye]

Who's twisting this gift? I'm afraid this is a statement that reflects how wide the gulf of misunderstanding that is being laid before us. This statement makes no sense to me. But for you it is obvious.

The argument from this side is not necessarily that "it is better to not be born at all than to suffer." While that sentiment is present, it is not the end of the argument.

Let's look at it in a catechism style. (What I believe are your answers based on what you've posted already--correct me if I'm wrong).

1) Did he or did he not create every one of us? YES.

2) Did he or did he not know that some of his creations would end up going to hell? YES.

3) Did he or did he not create us to be "destined for Himself"? YES

4) Is God an imperfect being? NO

6) Is God an imperfect creator? NO

7) If He created us destined for Himself, and He creates things perfectly, how do some find their destiny in hell???

God also created us free, as rational beings, with the ability to reason and make choices.

[Vort]

Let me point out, hopefully gently, that this thread is "Non-LDS view of God" and is in the Christian Beliefs section. I would suggest that arguing that thus-and-such interpretation is invalid from an LDS viewpoint is superfluous.

 

I am not a mod, nor do I pretend to be one. (Everyone breathes a sigh of relief, including Vort.) Just offering a third-party observation.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Vort

[Guest]

This is a view that reflects a trend in our society, that view being, it is better to not be born at all than to suffer. And, it is better to die than to suffer. I don't share this view.

God created us destined for Himself. Twisting this gift as something not of value, is diabolical in nature. I hope you understand, these types of arguments come from those who do not love God.

 

Either they do not love God... or they don't believe in ex nihilo creation.

 

There is a certain logic to a God who saw a spark of consciousness and loved him as opposed to a God who saw nothing and created something because of his love for that something that did not yet exist.

 

By the way, it's not just Mormons who don't subscribe to ex nihilo creation.  JW don't either.  And in addition, the ex nihilo argument is alive and well within a lot of Christian sects... including Catholicism (but most Catholics shy away from arguing the origin of spirits, concentrating mainly on the origin of the material world).  Just want to point that out so this post doesn't get interpreted as promoting LDS views instead of Non-LDS views of God.

Edited December 3, 2015 by anatess

[blueskye]

Either they do not love God... or they don't believe in ex nihilo creation.

There is a certain logic to a God who saw a spark of consciousness and loved him as opposed to a God who saw nothing and created something because of his love for that something that did not yet exist.

By the way, it's not just Mormons who don't subscribe to ex nihilo creation. JW don't either. And in addition, the ex nihilo argument is alive and well within a lot of Christian sects... including Catholicism (but most Catholics shy away from arguing the origin of spirits, concentrating mainly on the origin of the material world). Just want to point that out so this post doesn't get interpreted as promoting LDS views instead of Non-LDS views of God.

Yes, also is an atheist view.

[Guest]

Yes, also is an atheist view.

 

Hah hah... No.  Atheists do not believe in God.  Therefore, they don't believe anything is created/not created, nor loved by Him. 

 

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.

[Guest]

God also created us free, as rational beings, with the ability to reason and make choices.

 

And such choices are predictable by God.  So, why create a being who would make choices that would send himself to hell?

[Vort]

And such choices are predictable by God.  So, why create a being who would make choices that would send himself to hell?

 

This is an irreconcilable philosophical/theological problem. The best attempt I have heard is those who say, "Yes, God knew what you would choose, and he knew before the moment he created you that you would make choices that would send you to hell. But he gave you free will, so you chose to do what he knew you would do before he created you, so therefore it's your fault and you deserve to go to hell." A frank copout, yet also frankly more satisfying, is to say (as many do), "We don't know. It's a divine mystery."

[blueskye]

Hah hah... No. Atheists do not believe in God. Therefore, they don't believe anything is created/not created, nor loved by Him.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.

Atheists make arguments against the God who Christians worship. Mormons make the same arguments against our God. Neither, love our God. Belief, or not, has got nothing to do with it.

[blueskye]

And such choices are predictable by God. So, why create a being who would make choices that would send himself to hell?

Why not?

You seem to be coming from a position that God, by virtue of creating you, owes you something. God owes you nothing. You owe Him, everything.

[Jane_Doe]

This whole thing is getting way away from where I was going with the OP....

[prisonchaplain]

The argument is not whose choice it is to separate from the Father.  The argument is that in giving the choice, God knows there will be those that will be in hell.  So, the contradiction lies in a God who created people from nothing out of love knowing that they will be in hell.  The premise is that being in a state of nothingness is better than being in a state of hell.  The only resolution to the contradiction is to not have created.  So, the "creation out of love" is questionable under this concept.

 

I had a philosophy professor argue something along these lines.  He seemed to believe that foreknowledge and predestination were the same thing.  God may know we'll end up in hell, but He still gives us that freedom.  Perhaps it is the ultimate love to know that your greatest creation would eternally reject you, and yet you still make him or her and let it happen.

[Guest]

Atheists...Mormons ... Neither, love our God.

 

I guess we now know where you're coming from.

 

I had a philosophy professor argue something along these lines.  He seemed to believe that foreknowledge and predestination were the same thing.  God may know we'll end up in hell, but He still gives us that freedom.  Perhaps it is the ultimate love to know that your greatest creation would eternally reject you, and yet you still make him or her and let it happen.

 

PC,

 

I believe you have a point.  It is about the nature of choice.  

 

Many on this board, myself included, seem to conclude that ex-nihilo creation logically results in predestination. 

From the definitions I'm working with, free will and predestination are mutually exclusive.

Thus free will is not a valid argument for why a loving God creates someone ex-nihilo that will eventually go to hell.

 

If you've got a logical argument that provides an alternative to the three statements above, I'd like to hear it.  Otherwise, I understand that you're taking it on faith, which is a perfectly valid position and one which I can respect.  If so, we'll agree to disagree.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Guest