The Golden Rule

[shanstress70]

I didn't have you in mind when I wrote that, shan. Sorry if you thought I was mocking your point of view. In case you didn't know, I like ya. :)

Oh, sorry for gettin' all defensive! You're pretty cool too, CK, even when you're so obviously wrong.

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

They are all human myths to me.

Then everyone on this site, and the thousands living around you are deluded? Maybe I am? I believe it is possible to be fair in one's speech regarding the marginalized. I come to this belief through reason and careful consideration. I also come to my religious beliefs through reason and careful consideration. It is human to seek after the mysterious and unattainable through reason and careful consideration. Maybe my delusion extends to the human myths of reason and careful consideration.

Maybe my beliefs are as solid and authentic-looking as plastic home siding or bubble-gum wrapping. Maybe I am okay with being unreasonable. I don't have to believe in G-d based on any human understanding. In fact I probably should not and by such I should then try to explain the mysterious and unattainable through unreason, unlogic, delusion, and self-deception if it means denying that which has proven as dangerous to society on the fringe as has human understanding, logic, common-sense and philosophy.

Maybe I should accept both unreason and reason. They are obviously both true if I say I have a testimony of the existence of G-d by reason and careful consideration and by personal witness and emotional connection. My nihilism is extended only to the philosophies of men and humanity and obvious, self-admitting mythology. I have experienced far too much of G-d and deity to be able to deny my religion.

I would love to respond to you. But first, I would need your guarantee that you wouldn't take it personal. If you were to read this entire thread you would see far too many people are upset just because I am doing what you just did, expressing my experience with any god.

Second, I do not see you or anyone else as deluded, per se. I do not understand your experiences, but I do not deny them. I just don't understand them because I have not had them. However, I do have questions about them that are probably difficult questions for the believer that are not meant to be offensive, but to help you and others better understand my disbelief. But for some reason if I ask them them ad hominem attacks come out.

Anyway, you, of course, can leave it with this post, which is lovely as all of your always are.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

[in response to Elphaba's post #120]

When I first entered this thread back at post #49, I was doing so in a sincere effort to help you and others on this thread.

My goal was to determine:

1) whether you actually were offended (or upset, use whatever term you like);

2) if so, to identify what specifically offended or upset you

3) once identified, to address each particular issue.

In subsequent posts, you responded evasively, with generalizations of your character traits, and (see post #51), twisted to inanity the intended meaning of my question (see post #54), and then accused me of playing word games (again, post #54). You also insinuated that I have limited intellectual means and do not have the ability to belong to a learned profession. (#58 and #120).

And yet in post #15, you stated that you believed you could live by the Golden Rule, and that it was, in fact, your "religion". I know you will have a way of reconciling that statement to your actions.

And to think, I actually welcomed you back.

I am now in the John Doe club.

AK, please, just leave me alone. Stay in the 'John Doe" club (whatever that is). Don't write me any more e-mails or PMs trying to be my friend while you write this kind of nonsense. I never "asked" for you help, nor did I need it.

I'm putting you on ignore.

Elphaba

[Doctor Steuss]

Thank you again, Dr. S.,

As stated in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo I've only heard it talked about in creation-not related to the idea that God made us flawed and therefore, it is his fault that "we are the way we are." Since I think you are saying, "God made man flauwed/not perfect" and therefore sets us up to fail yet requires perfection, and connecting the ex nihilio idea, I'm confused. Those seem like different ideas. So my question is, how would it be different (in any way) it he created nonex-nihilo (if that's a word).

Thank you

Good morning Dr. T.,

My mind is still having some issues today, so hopefully I will be able to explain this well.

Creation ex nihilo (as I understand it) not only applies to creation (as in things physical), but also to the creation of man’s nature, soul, will, being, time, space, agency, conscious, etc. There is nothing that exists that G-d did not create from “nothingness.” As He created all things (both material and immaterial) from “nothingness” it seems like a logical conclusion that He could have created them differently. Those materials, souls, agencies, consciousness, dreams, aspirations, hopes, etc. that are flawed in any way could have been conceivably created without said flaws. This also ties into the concept of omnipotence. If there is nothing that G-d can’t do, and if He created all things from “nothingness,” then He is the ultimate cause of all things negative or positive (especially when we factor into the equation G-d’s omniscience). If He created Satan from “nothingness” and if He had the power to create Satan differently (i.e. give him a different nature, etc.) then conceivably He is ultimately responsible for all actions carried out by His creation(s).

Now, this is where I’m going to move into personal speculation mode, and as such my thoughts probably won’t line up with “official” LDS thought…

Now, if an LDS paradigm of pre-existent matter, “intelligence,” etc. it taken, there is still a problem. If there is nothing that G-d cannot do, then conceivably He could still take this pre-existent matter (both the immaterial and material) and alter it in such a way as to rid any imperfections. This is why I tend to think that there are things which G-d is incapable of doing; eternal laws which even He must abide by. Now some may gasp at this idea, but to those who gasp at the idea that there are things that G-d can’t do, I ask you one question: “Can G-d lie?”

This is why I think that G-d being omnipotent (in the classic form of the word) can cause problems. I guess that essentially the problems don’t find their way in through the ex nihilo door, but instead through the omnipotence window. Even the conundrums that are found within an “out of nothing” creation of all things would essentially disappear if G-d was bound by laws that required Him to create from “nothingness” in a predisposed fashion. (I really hope that makes sense)…

This is just one of the things that I think the “battles” with the Gnostics within early Christianity and the influx of Greek philosophy essentially caused more problems than it resolved. If omnipotence is changed slightly from “having all power” to instead “having all available power,” some of the issues tend to lose substantial gravity IMO.

And in rereading my comments over the past two days, I see that I moved from ex nihilo to omnipotence to Gnostics to Greek philosophy… I really have some serious problems keeping the goal-posts stationary (sorry).

[the Ogre]

I would love to respond to you.

Respond away.

But first, I would need your guarantee that you wouldn't take it personal. If you were to read this entire thread you would see far too many people are upset just because I am doing what you just did, expressing my experience with any god.

Don't worry about it; Ogres don't have feelings (ask Shrek).

I did read the entire thread and would have responded earlier, but then some of my responses would have been quite late.

The one post that I liked was when of the regulars discussed debating the nature of d-ety with the president of Utah's local chapter of the athiest's cabal. What do you think G-d could be? If G-d were a person, would it be possible to live up to those (your) expectations . . . ?

Second, I do not see you or anyone else as deluded, per se. I do not understand your experiences, but I do not deny them (I respect this and understand you -- I have no idea what it means to be pregnant but I do not deny the possibility for the pain related to pregnancy and childbirth). I just don't understand them because I have not had them. However, I do have questions about them that are probably difficult questions for the believer that are not meant to be offensive, but to help you and others better understand my disbelief. But for some reason if I ask them them ad hominem attacks come out.

To better understand your position, is there a philosopical or theoretical framework that you base skepticism on?

Anyway, you, of course, can leave it with this post, which is lovely as all of your always are.

Elphaba

Thanks, you are extremely courteous!

Aaron the Ogre:)

[Dr T]

Hello Dr. S,

I see your train of thought. Above, you raised an issue of Jesus that I've spent some time thinking about. It is commonly phrased as Posse non peccare and Non posse peccare, that is was Jesus able not to sin or not able to sin. It is a great concept to ponder (for me anyway). It is a quandary for me. If I say Jesus could have sinned, then essentially, it follows that he was not God. If I say he could not have sinned, then so what that he lived a sinless life. This moved me into the concept of the hypostatic union and the idea that Jesus possessed two natures-fully God and fully man. That leads to other concepts that I'm wrestling with right now. As for the idea that God can do all things, I don't believe that. I hold that God can do all things that are possibly done. If things are outside of his essence such as being holy, then it cannot be done. He cannot cease to exist, lie, etc. I do believe the he did make all things but giving the opportunity to make our own decisions, he has given us freedom to choose and act as we want. If we see that as a set up and destined to fail, I'm not so sure that it is. So far, like I said above, I'm thinking that God in his infinite wisdom made this world the best possible world and is allowing it to go forward with his plan. Being God, his plan must be better than my fable thought that, "All people should treat each other right and everything will be great" and allow everyone to live with him for eternity. God, being just, holy, faithful, good, all powerful, all knowing, etc. must have the answer that my mind cannot fully grasp. Have to run. I'll have to reread your post and address anything I missed in this post at a later time.

Thanks again :)

[Doctor Steuss]

Thank you Dr. T for your thoughtful reply. This in particular…

“Posse non peccare and Non posse peccare”

… has another avenue that I often contemplate on lazy days. Could G-d sin if he wanted to? If He can’t sin, then He doesn’t have the very free agency that He thought so important to give to us. But, if He can sin, then is He essentially worthy of our trust and faith? If the probability for Him to sin is a definitive zero, then is the possibility for Him to make that choice even there? And if the choice cannot be made, then does He really have the ability to choose?

Such are the circular, round and round, things regarding the divine and eternities that make my brain stretch to uncomfortable contortions.

Also, another noodle scratcher is... could we sin in heaven if we wanted to?

What an enjoyable and fruitful thread this has become.

My thanks be to you. :)

[CrimsonKairos]

Also, another noodle scratcher is... could we sin in heaven if we wanted to?

By heaven, do you mean the pre-existence, or do you mean the kingdoms of glory?

I think Alma 13 shows that we did sin in various ways and to various degrees in the pre-existence.

As for can God sin, if He can't does He have agency, et al, I think it's unimportant to distinguish.

Yes, God could choose to withhold blessings from a righteous soul when He had promised to bless him. But He never will, since its not in His nature to do so.

The effective concern is "Will God ever sin?" The answer is "No," even though He has the power to choose to sin.

[Doctor Steuss]

<div class='quotemain'>

Also, another noodle scratcher is... could we sin in heaven if we wanted to?

By heaven, do you mean the pre-existence, or do you mean the kingdoms of glory?

I think Alma 13 shows that we did sin in various ways and to various degrees in the pre-existence.

As for can God sin, if He can't does He have agency, et al, I think it's unimportant to distinguish.

Yes, God could choose to withhold blessings from a righteous soul when He had promised to bless him. But He never will, since its not in His nature to do so.

The effective concern is "Will God ever sin?" The answer is "No," even though He has the power to choose to sin.

I think this is essentially where my general thoughts tend to take me on the subject (and yes, I was referring to kingdoms of glory).

I think that we will probably have the ability to sin if we wanted to, but by the time we reach our given glory (if we reach the CK), our nature and longing to avoid sinful acts will basically be solidified.

This is also why I think those who actively seek to fight against G-d will continue to do so in the hereafter (thusly helping to understand how someone would refuse to accept the gospel when faced with the definitive knowledge of G-d’s existence).

[Dr T]

I'm glad that you're hear Dr. S and I love that you are a thinker. I came to the question of being able to sin in heaven while I was thinking about my idea that "this is the best possible world to carry out God's plan" too. Since God choses not to live where sinfulness is, I'd doubt that sin is in heaven. That doesn't answer the question if those two existences are better than the other however. I'm new and still thinking about the implications of my beliefs. I look forward to talking to you more.

Thanks

[Adomini22]

Interesting posts. I agree with Dr. S.............

[Dr T]

Maybe next time I'll spell here instead of hear correctly

[pam]

Maybe next time I'll spell here instead of hear correctly

Now now now Dr. T. If spelling were a requirement for this board...we would all have been banned long ago.

[CrimsonKairos]

What wood you say that four? Its knot like we cant spell rite. Show me wear I've ever writen anything that's not goode. Let's sea if you can dew it. C'mon...show me what yore maid of!

[pam]

What wood you say that four? Its knot like we cant spell rite. Show me wear I've ever writen anything that's not goode. Let's sea if you can dew it. C'mon...show me what yore maid of!

I wood lov two but I is two tard.

[CrimsonKairos]

Exacadacally what I thought!

[Dr T]

That was great! Thanks for the grace.

[pam]

enytyme my frend

[CrimsonKairos]

[Gwen]

so my spelling may appear as to be keeping in line with the making dr t feel better, but i can't claim that, i just can't spell. i've enjoyed reading this topic but avoided saying anything .... well, rather frankly cause i'm afraid of looking dumb. some of you guys blow me out of the water and make me feel like i know nothing. but i'm gonna throw my hat in the ring anyway and attempt to put my opinion on something into words.

the whole "can god sin? could there be sin in heaven?" thing. the way i guess i see that, though i'm sure overly simplistic, goes back to an article i read (way back in high school so no i can't reference it) about hypnosis. there was the whole argument as to can you be made to do something under hypnosis that you wouldn't ordinarly do. the whole test was they took a group of ppl, one at a time, and under hypnosis told them that they were going to have tea with some horrible horrible person (they went into detail of how and why he was horrible) but that he had escaped the law. there would be some sugar cubes on the table, some marked as having poison in them and others safe, and when they had tea with this man they were to give him the poisoned sugar cubes in his tea. they were assured that they were doing the world a favor and this needed to be done. not everyone would poison him. some even under the hypnosis refused to "kill" this man; though in agreement that the world would be better off without him. the conclusion was that if it's not in your capacity to do something not even hypnosis can make you do it.

that's how i see sin after this life. everyone, even god, has agency; the capacity to make a choice and the ability to act on it. by default that means yes they can sin. as for god, i think he can't sin, not because he can't, but because he won't. his heart is such that it's not in his capacity to do so. just as we can become and should become like that. i think to make it to the celestial kingdom we must have that change of heart, one that is so compleat and pure that we can't sin. not because the choice is gone, but that it's who we are. so i guess i'd say it's not that we couldn't sin in heaven, but there will be no sin in heaven.

not sure if that makes since. or maybe i've said what yall have been saying all along but it was over my head so i missed it. humm.....i will probably wish i had stayed out of this topic later.

[Doctor Steuss]

Hi Doctor T.

Here's another one that I often toy with (perhaps you have some insights). It is a common belief that no unclean thing can enter heaven. However, in Job 1:6 we find...

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Whatcha think?

PS.

Eye halve a spelling chequer

It came with my pea sea

It plainly marques four my revue

Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word

And weight four it two say

Weather eye am wrong oar write

It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid

It nose bee fore two long

And eye can put the error rite

Its rare lea ever wrong.

----------

One more thing in regards to sin in heaven and agency. I came up with this metaphor last night; it’s kind of, ummmm… colorful, but hopefully it makes sense.

If you put a plate of dog poop in front of me, I could choose to eat it. However, the chances of me choosing to eat it are zero. This does not negate my ability to choose to eat it, it only illustrates my utter distain for munching on doggy-doo.

Sin is dog poop to those in heaven.

Tah-dah!

[Dr T]

Thank you for the input Almom :)

[pam]

That was beautifully put ALmom. You should never be afraid to post what you feel. That was said better than alot of the posts I have read so far. Thank you.

[Dr T]

Hey Dr. S,

I think God can be in the presence of evil, like the example that you gave. We also read David I think, who said, "If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there." That is why I said, "chooses" not to allow them to live with him. He kicked Satan out of his presence but we see he can still talk to him. He reaches out to use-sinners. I think the above issue, the main issue, is God's character-who he is at his core. I don't really think that it is just a choice for him to act godly I think he must be godly because that is what he essentially is. I'll have to lay it out for us to see if it is coherent. Can't do it now.

[CrimsonKairos]

I think the point about "no unclean thing dwelling with God" is that no unclean thing can inherit what God has. In other words, no unclean thing can dwell with God in Celestial glory. I think it's talking about our eternal state or assigned kingdom of glory following death and judgment.

After all, we all sinned to varying degrees in the premortal existence, else why would God reveal to Abraham that he was one of the "noble and great ones?" Also, see Alma 13.

So I don't think it's saying God is incapable of quickening unclean beings to be able to temporarily abide His presence.