person0 Posted March 26, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 20 minutes ago, Earl said: christian perspective,not mine If not Christian, what is your religion? 21 minutes ago, Earl said: Is God Omniscient-All knowing In my opinion, yes. 21 minutes ago, Earl said: If we believe God knows all things there will be no choice to make.A choice is based on two or more ,either or When one is Omniscient things are cut and dried, no options necessary,no decision has to be made simply because God knows the outcome in advance . I disagree. Just because you already know all of the outcomes, does not mean there is no choice, it just means you already know what choice you will make, or that you have already made the choice in advance. There is a very long discussion that has been picked up across multiple years about omniscience, agency, and determinism in a different thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProDeo Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 6 hours ago, person0 said: I apologize that I must have been unclear. To me the Atonement of Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary. I believe that without it, God would not be capable of saving us (the Atonement is like a tool that is required to complete the job). However, because of Jesus Christ completing the Atonement, it made it possible for all mankind to be saved, and for all mankind to be resurrected. Ultimately, most (but not all) people will receive some degree of salvation. Salvation does not necessarily mean they will live in God's presence. About the part I bolded, I think He could have done it in a different (less convincing) way. person0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 personO I would have thought you would have caught that I I did not believe all of christianity's tenants early on in my posts. Anyway God is not omnificencent -He does not do all that is done This opens the door for all those who work for him to voluntarily make choices based on his will God's will is unchanging A choice means that things can change The Bible reads God is changeless This is my understanding Until next time,thanks for the docttrinal information Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
person0 Posted March 26, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, MaryJehanne said: Yes, but there still would have been a necessary, preliminary act, even if that were as simple as a movement of His Will, instead of His Crucifixion. I know I am now asking a hypothetical, however, in your opinion if God had chosen to do it this way, how would justice be fulfilled on behalf of the sinner? Or would God just not require justice in that case? Edited March 26, 2018 by person0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaryJehanne Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 23 minutes ago, person0 said: I know I am now asking a hypothetical, however, in your opinion if God had chosen to do it this way, how would justice be fulfilled on behalf of the sinner? Or would God just not require justice in that case? I’m not hundred percent sure I understood what you’re asking, so please redirect me if I’ve got it wrong! If God had chosen to redeem us by a movement of His will, rather than the enaction of His Passion, the results would have been the same as far as justice and salvation goes. So, the chain would have the a link that did the same job. The essential quality of the opening of heaven would have been done. For justice on the behalf of the sinner, do you mean justice as applied to an individual person who repents? God’s justice is always present, and would never change as a quality. However, His Mercy is far greater. The mere action of opening heaven, whether by the Crucifixion or another means, is an act of mercy, because in justice we deserved no second chance. I’m sorry! That answer may have been a bit vague, just because I wasn’t sure I understood! I’ll be happy to re-answer if this didn’t quite hit the mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
person0 Posted March 26, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 9 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said: in justice we deserved no second chance. I like this phrase, and agree. 9 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said: If God had chosen to redeem us by a movement of His will, rather than the enaction of His Passion, the results would have been the same as far as justice and salvation goes. So this is where I am confused. My understanding is that the Atonement of Christ, in some way, actually pays the price for sin, in order to enable mercy to be extended. How would a movement of His will accomplish this? How would the punishment of the repentant sinner be overcome without the Atonement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaryJehanne Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 2 minutes ago, person0 said: I like this phrase, and agree. So this is where I am confused. My understanding is that the Atonement of Christ, in some way, actually pays the price for sin, in order to enable mercy to be extended. How would a movement of His will accomplish this? How would the punishment of the repentant sinner be overcome without the Atonement? I could be wrong, and maybe some Catholic Theologians would tell me God stilll would have needed to find another way to pay for the sins of the world (so for this part I’m easing off claiming any official stance - this is more speculation on my part!). But I always feel uncomfortable putting a cap on God (after all, He’s omnipotent!), and, if the debt was owed to Him, couldn’t He easily forgive it? The Crucifixion shows how much the debt we incurred is, but did He have to show us that? (It’s certianly a blessing that he did!) The Crucifixion did pay the debt of sin, but that didn’t allow His mercy to be extended in the larger sense. Yes, it reopened heaven, but God was still merciful throughout the Old Testament. He had mercy on Ninevah for repenting and didn’t obliterate the city. In justice, they certianly deserved it, but His love is unconquerable. Nothing can restrict His mercy. It is freely given and never deserved. It certianly has no restrictions. person0 and mordorbund 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
person0 Posted March 26, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: But I always feel uncomfortable putting a cap on God (after all, He’s omnipotent!), and, if the debt was owed to Him, couldn’t He easily forgive it? Thank you for your perspective. I think this is where we would differ somewhat. I personally don't have a problem putting a 'cap' on God. The way I see it is that by definition, God's omnipotence represents his ability to do anything that is possible. If something is not possible to be done, and the power or ability to do it does not exist, then God still has all power, because He can still do everything that is possible to be done. Therefore, based on that understanding of omnipotence, for me it does not create a conflict to say that I think God can't override justice, but instead must fulfill it. It also does not create a conflict when I say that I believe God cannot create matter from nothing. These are both areas where other Christian denominations might understandably disagree. Okay, so here's another question to follow up on your answer. BTW, I hope you are enjoying this discussion, I am not intending to pester you, I just like to understand the perspectives of others. As I mentioned in the OP, my own father is Muslim, so comparing my beliefs to those of others is something I have always had to do, and find enjoyable and helpful to find common ground as well as fortify or expand aspects of my belief as I learn. Anyway, you said that you feel that: 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: Nothing can restrict His mercy. It is freely given and never deserved. It certianly has no restrictions. If this is the case, why does He not go ahead save everyone? I recognize you have already said he won't save those who knowingly reject him by denying the Holy Ghost (I also agree, we call these people Sons of Perdition). What about people who die and then realize they are in Hell (or waiting to go to Hell) and it sucks to be there and they change their mind and decide they will be obedient and accept Him. Or possibly, people who die without having knowledge of Christ? Without restrictions, do you think there is a reason that God, being benevolent, would not save them anyway at that point? Edited March 26, 2018 by person0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaryJehanne Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 4 hours ago, person0 said: Thank you for your perspective. I think this is where we would differ somewhat. I personally don't have a problem putting a 'cap' on God. The way I see it is that by definition, God's omnipotence represents his ability to do anything that is possible. If something is not possible to be done, and the power or ability to do it does not exist, then God still has all power, because He can still do everything that is possible to be done. Yes, you would certainly find agreement amongst Catholic theologians and philosophers that God can do anything that is possible! For instance, to the question of whether God could create a square circle, they'd say that's a ridiculous postulate, since there's no such thing. I'd agree, of course. But, in my personal train of thought, anyway, as I'm sure many of them probably have, I'd expand. Who made squareness? Who made circles? God defined these laws and operates within what He's established, but they are by no means greater than Him. We can't necessarily comprehend of a re-definition of such principles as created beings, but it is entirely within His ability to do so. These boundaries are subject to Him; He has chosen to establish them and has chosen to operate within them. The concept of "squareness" is not a self-existent principle that dominates God Himself. 4 hours ago, person0 said: Therefore, based on that understanding of omnipotence, for me it does not create a conflict to say that I think God can't override justice, but instead must fulfill it. It also does not create a conflict when I say that I believe God cannot create matter from nothing. These are both areas where other Christian denominations might understandably disagree. I'd say omnipotence is omnipotence, not semi-potence! God is the initial principle, self-existent and uncreated. He can withhold His justice if He so chooses, and does so continuously. If He could not, we'd already be damned. The mere fact that we have a chance of salvation is frustrating to Satan, because mercy is allowed to triumph and he is denied the justice of a sinful soul being cast into the Hell. ("Oh, how much I am hurt by a soul's distrust! Such a soul professes that I am Holy and Just, but does not believe that I am Mercy and does not trust My Goodness. Even the devils glorify My Justice but do not believe in My Goodness. My Heart rejoices in this title of Mercy" (Diary, 300).) I would say there is an extreme conflict if our God cannot create something from nothing! That would be far from omnipotence and a tremendous limitation of power. If that were the case, that would make him nothing but a creature, a powerful being, but not the ultimate One. To believe there could be external principles or realities that are self-existing, yet are not the Non-contingent Being, reminds me of the prolific atheist theory which states matter could be eternal, thus avoiding the issue of a creator. If something is not necessary, however, and cannot exist in and of itself, such as the lamp on my desk or the trees outside or even my own body and soul, that means something caused them to be. Something caused the very atoms to be; something caused the structure of my intellect and will. That would mean if we did indeed have a god who could not create something from nothing, there would need to be a primary God, a True God, above him, the one from which all things, all concepts, and structures have come. 4 hours ago, person0 said: Okay, so here's another question to follow up on your answer. BTW, I hope you are enjoying this discussion, I am not intending to pester you, I just like to understand the perspectives of others. As I mentioned in the OP, my own father is Muslim, so comparing my beliefs to those of others is something I have always had to do, and find enjoyable and helpful to find common ground as well as fortify or expand aspects of my belief as I learn. I am! You haven't been pestering at all. I love discussing philosophy and religion, and you've been very courteous! 4 hours ago, person0 said: Anyway, you said that you feel that: If this is the case, why does He not go ahead save everyone? I recognize you have already said he won't save those who knowingly reject him by denying the Holy Ghost (I also agree, we call these people Sons of Perdition). By "nothing can restrict His mercy," I didn't mean that it was an uncontrollable force without direction! God's mercy, insofar as it is His Will, cannot be restricted. He does desire that everyone attains salvation, because He designed them out of love for love. But He also desires that they choose this love. He has given us free will and does not choose to force us into loving Him. What kind of love forces itself on someone? Can that really be called love? His mercy, where He chooses to apply it, cannot be limited. But He does not choose to extend it to pardon an unrepentant sinner. There, His justice will be exacted. 5 hours ago, person0 said: What about people who die and then realize they are in Hell (or waiting to go to Hell) and it sucks to be there and they change their mind and decide they will be obedient and accept Him. They won't. If I understand it correctly, even the desire towards repentance is stirred in us by God's grace. Once people have died, they will remain in the state they have chosen. The hatred of someone who has chosen Hell is so great, they will despise Him. Even though Hell is painful, souls there will prefer it to being in the presence of the One they hate. Heaven would be torture for them. There will be no second guessing! It's hard to grasp this concept on Earth, because we are influenced by the movements of His grace and His constant invitation to love Him. That will not be the case once we have died. We will be in one camp or the other. 5 hours ago, person0 said: Or possibly, people who die without having knowledge of Christ? Without restrictions, do you think there is a reason that God, being benevolent, would not save them anyway at that point? People who die without knowledge of Christ, through no fault of their own, are not abandoned by Him, who loves them more than every person on Earth put together could ever hope of loving. He wouldn't destine a single soul to permeate separation from Him. By natural reason, and by attempting to function within what they understand as right in their limited knowledge, a person can choose good or evil, love or hatred. Once again, His mercy would conquer justice, and they could enter into heaven and an eternal relationship with Him in the Beatific Vision. Have you ever read The Last Battle, part of the Narnia series by C. S. Lewis? He portrays this very situation near the end of this book. There are is a character who follows a demon-like god, the whole while not knowing its nature and thinking he's serving good. When he discovers the truth and is met by Aslan (who represents God), Aslan tells him that he had really been serving Him all along. Christ wants a person to know Him and His Church so that He can give them all the graces and wisdom that comes along with that, but no loving soul will be turned away from Him at the gates to His kingdom. I'm sorry that took so long! I had to fit writing it in my free spots in the day. person0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaryJehanne Posted March 27, 2018 Report Share Posted March 27, 2018 Hey, @person0! You've just been really quiet, so I wanted to check in... I hope I answered your question all right! (If I offended you somewhere, please let me know so I can set things right. ) Anyway, thank you for the peaceful, intelligent discussion! I enjoyed answering and thinking through your questions. May Our Lord be with you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
person0 Posted March 27, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2018 10 hours ago, MaryJehanne said: You've just been really quiet, so I wanted to check in... So sorry, I have been planning to respond. Just busy with the kids. I hope to respond by the end of the day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaryJehanne Posted March 27, 2018 Report Share Posted March 27, 2018 3 hours ago, person0 said: So sorry, I have been planning to respond. Just busy with the kids. I hope to respond by the end of the day! You’re completely fine! You were replying so quickly in the past, I didn’t know if there had been a problem. Take your time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
person0 Posted March 28, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 On 3/26/2018 at 5:31 PM, MaryJehanne said: God defined these laws and operates within what He's established, but they are by no means greater than Him. . . We can't necessarily comprehend of a re-definition of such principles as created beings, but it is entirely within His ability to do so. Personally from a philosophical perspective I would phrase it in such a way to say that if God operates within a law, even if He created the law, the law is made equal with Him because He obeys it. We know He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, we therefore know He will always obey a law that He follows today. The law requires Him to enforce it, and He requires the law in order to accomplish His will. Once the law is defined and implemented, God cannot change it without contradicting himself, therefore, because He is perfect and unchanging, He will not change it. As a result, although a law defined by God is still an inanimate principle, it is yet equal in status with God. Because of the inability to contradict Himself, any law that God has established cannot be redefined. In order to prevent confusion, God's commandments to mankind are not the same as laws he implements to govern his works and Himself. Any commandment given to man can be implemented, altered, or eliminated, so long as He does not contradict an eternal law He established. I don't think this necessarily has to disagree with what you said, but perhaps expounds upon it from a different perspective. On 3/26/2018 at 5:31 PM, MaryJehanne said: I would say there is an extreme conflict if our God cannot create something from nothing! That would be far from omnipotence and a tremendous limitation of power. If that were the case, that would make him nothing but a creature, a powerful being, but not the ultimate One. To believe there could be external principles or realities that are self-existing, yet are not the Non-contingent Being, reminds me of the prolific atheist theory which states matter could be eternal, thus avoiding the issue of a creator. If something is not necessary, however, and cannot exist in and of itself, such as the lamp on my desk or the trees outside or even my own body and soul, that means something caused them to be. Something caused the very atoms to be; something caused the structure of my intellect and will. That would mean if we did indeed have a god who could not create something from nothing, there would need to be a primary God, a True God, above him, the one from which all things, all concepts, and structures have come. Wow! I must admit that just about everything in this paragraph is going to be an area where we will have to agree to disagree, haha. LDS doctrine is almost exactly contradictory to most of what you have said here. I certainly do not believe that stating God cannot create matter from nothing places any limitation upon Him, because I believe that matter is an uncreated substance, which cannot be created. LDS doctrine directly rejects the idea of creation ex-nihilo. Regarding this, Joseph Smith taught the following: Quote Now, the word create…does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos-chaotic matter, which is element…. Element had an existence from the time [God] had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.(EOM - Matter) In addition to matter being an uncreated substance, we also believe the same about spirit: Quote There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.(D&C 131:7-8) Matter and spirit are the two great principles of all existence. Everything animate and inanimate is composed of one or the other, or both of these eternal principles…. Matter and spirit are of equal duration; both are self-existent, they never began to exist, and they never can be annihilated…. Matter as well as spirit is eternal, uncreated, self existing. However infinite the variety of its changes, forms and shapes; …eternity is inscribed in indelible characters on every particle.(EOM - Matter) Because of these beliefs. The traditional Christian definition of a 'creature' of God, is something that does not exist in LDS theology. Man, beast, earth, etc, were all created by God, but were created from eternally existing substances that have always been co-eternal with God. To me it is entirely logical and reasonable to suggest that if God did not have a beginning or end, why would matter have had to have one? Philosophically speaking, just because one sees God as the 'first mover', does not have to mean He did not move upon something that already existed but was incapable of moving itself. If all physical and spiritual substance is understood as co-eternal with God, there would not be any logical need for a primary God above Him. On 3/26/2018 at 5:31 PM, MaryJehanne said: He can withhold His justice if He so chooses, and does so continuously. If He could not, we'd already be damned. I agree with this statement, but with limitations. I believe He can only withhold His justice because of the Atonement of Christ, not because He could just do it cause He wanted to. Obviously, this means (as previously suggested), that I personally believe the Atonement of Christ was required, and that God would not have done it had there been another way. LDS scriptures corroborate this idea: Quote And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.(Alma 42:15) emphasis added Referring back to the first thing discussed in this response, even if God created the law of justice, He cannot suspend or avoid the law without contradicting himself, therefore, He must obey it. I can't imagine any other way to comply with the law on behalf of mankind except for through an infinite atonement to overcome the punishment required for our sins. On 3/26/2018 at 5:31 PM, MaryJehanne said: His mercy, where He chooses to apply it, cannot be limited. I believe that God will always be as merciful as He possibly can be, and will give all of His children the maximum blessing He can give them. However, He is limited by two principles that He himself established. The first and obvious one that has been discussed is the law of justice. Mercy can be extended insomuch as the law of justice is fulfilled. The Atonement of Christ fulfilled the law, therefore mercy is extended to those who follow the 'rules' established by Christ to receive/participate in His atonement. The second is that God has given mankind the ability to choose for ourselves, therefore, we are inhibited during mortality from fully enjoying His mercy in situations where we choose wrongfully and bring it upon ourselves, but also in situations where other's choose wrongfully and bring pain upon us. God does not stop those who rape and murder and lie, etc, even though they bring pain and suffering to many, because in many cases doing so would be in contradiction to the agency ('free will') he has bestowed upon us, and He cannot/will not contradict Himself. However, the Atonement of Christ, at least to the LDS paradigm, is infinitely capable to overcome this as well. Quote 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; 18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—(D&C 19:16-18) 11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictionsand temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. 12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.(Alma 7:11-12) On 3/26/2018 at 5:31 PM, MaryJehanne said: They won't. If I understand it correctly, even the desire towards repentance is stirred in us by God's grace. Once people have died, they will remain in the state they have chosen. The hatred of someone who has chosen Hell is so great, they will despise Him. Even though Hell is painful, souls there will prefer it to being in the presence of the One they hate. Heaven would be torture for them. My original question on this was solely to get your perspective. I agree with the above completely, and so does the Book of Mormon: Quote Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.(Alma 34:34) On 3/26/2018 at 5:31 PM, MaryJehanne said: People who die without knowledge of Christ, through no fault of their own, are not abandoned by Him, who loves them more than every person on Earth put together could ever hope of loving. My opinion, and LDS doctrine agrees with this as well. Once again, I was asking only for your perspective. Okay, so in summation, as would be expected, we agree on some things and disagree on others. However, I do maintain that it is logical, even from the traditional Christian (non-lds) perspective to suggest that because God is unchanging, it can also be said that He cannot change. As a result He must obey any law He creates and cannot circumvent His own law. Not necessarily because of being technically incapable of doing it, but because it would cause Him to contradict Himself and to do that would be to change. Which is why I love it that the Book of Mormon prophets wrote the statement 'if so, God would cease to be God'. Of course, that would never happen, God will never cease to be God, therefore He will not change, and He will obey eternal laws, regardless of whether one believes He created them, or whether they exist co-eternally and independent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
person0 Posted March 28, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) On 7/20/2017 at 12:01 AM, Vort said: As a Latter-day Saint, I would respond that I think this is a misreading of scripture. In several instances in the Book of Mormon and elsewhere, prophets build a sort of logical structure to demonstrate something or other. One logical structure they use is the age-old reductio ad absurdum, wherein a proposition is shown to lead inevitably to an obviously false, absurd conclusion, and is therefore itself false. The implication is not "God would stop being God under condition X", but rather "Look at how silly this proposition is!" Upon recent pondering in further depth, I have determined that the OP does not require that interpretation of the given verses in order to establish a valid premise. In an additional area of agreement, it well may be that Alma did not have the same degree of understanding regarding the nature of God and of eternal progression as we have available to us in the latter-days through the restored gospel. Therefore, even theoretically suggesting that God has the ability to attempt to break the law, thereby causing Himself to fall and to 'cease to be God' does not have to necessarily relate or apply to the intent of the statements made by Alma and Moroni. However, I believe that recognizing God's possession of agency is central to the idea and understanding that we can become perfect as He is perfect, by always choosing perfectly, continuously and without end, as He does. Do you not agree that God still possesses agency? If He does posses it, is it not logical to conclude that He uses it to always make the perfect choice 100% of the time? If it is logical, then is it not inversely logical to conclude that He has the technical ability to intentionally make an imperfect choice? And if so, what else could be the theoretical result of such a choice? Perhaps you have another paradigm in which to consider this theoretical postulation that I have not yet considered. Elder Holland also noted: Quote God cannot simply turn a blind eye to the breaking of divine law, because in so doing he would dishonor justice and would "cease to be God," which thing he would never do. (Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1997], pp. 225) I think Elder Holland's statement clearly matches my line of thinking on this. Because it never will/would happen, it can be said that it cannot happen, however, theoretically it technically is within the realm of God's agency. Edited March 28, 2018 by person0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaryJehanne Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 3 hours ago, person0 said: Personally from a philosophical perspective I would phrase it in such a way to say that if God operates within a law, even if He created the law, the law is made equal with Him because He obeys it. We know He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, we therefore know He will always obey a law that He follows today. The law requires Him to enforce it, and He requires the law in order to accomplish His will. Once the law is defined and implemented, God cannot change it without contradicting himself, therefore, because He is perfect and unchanging, He will not change it. As a result, although a law defined by God is still an inanimate principle, it is yet equal in status with God. Because of the inability to contradict Himself, any law that God has established cannot be redefined. In order to prevent confusion, God's commandments to mankind are not the same as laws he implements to govern his works and Himself. Any commandment given to man can be implemented, altered, or eliminated, so long as He does not contradict an eternal law He established. I don't think this necessarily has to disagree with what you said, but perhaps expounds upon it from a different perspective. Yes, from my Catholic perspective, I would agree that God is the same and unchanging -- in His essence. But I'd diverge from your thinking when you say He can't change a principle He made. By what you're defining as change, He would have changed when He established the rule you say He can't change now. Those that are truly an innate part of Him, though, won't change, like His infinite Mercy, or like His being God. Whether there's such a thing as a dog, though? He could totally subtract dogs from existence without compromising His nature! 3 hours ago, person0 said: Wow! I must admit that just about everything in this paragraph is going to be an area where we will have to agree to disagree, haha. LDS doctrine is almost exactly contradictory to most of what you have said here. I certainly do not believe that stating God cannot create matter from nothing places any limitation upon Him, because I believe that matter is an uncreated substance, which cannot be created. LDS doctrine directly rejects the idea of creation ex-nihilo. Regarding this, Joseph Smith taught the following: In addition to matter being an uncreated substance, we also believe the same about spirit: Because of these beliefs. The traditional Christian definition of a 'creature' of God, is something that does not exist in LDS theology. Man, beast, earth, etc, were all created by God, but were created from eternally existing substances that have always been co-eternal with God. To me it is entirely logical and reasonable to suggest that if God did not have a beginning or end, why would matter have had to have one? Philosophically speaking, just because one sees God as the 'first mover', does not have to mean He did not move upon something that already existed but was incapable of moving itself. If all physical and spiritual substance is understood as co-eternal with God, there would not be any logical need for a primary God above Him. Ha ha! Yeah, that would make sense. Catholic doctrine and LDS doctrine split very definitively along this point, which is why I think a lot of the things I've been talking about when explaining and stating my perspective don't line up for you. I'm making underlying assumptions about the nature of man, but especially the nature of God that we don't share, so we're saying some similar things with very different meanings! I was expressing a fundamental, orthodox Catholic viewpoint; the Catholic Church would strictly reject the idea that anything could exist before or beyond God, so that's where I'm coming from. What I wrote there was essentially a paraphrase of St. Thomas Aquinas's first, second, and third proofs for the existence of God from his 13th century work, Summa Theologicae. For instance, my perspective would totally align with his second proof: "The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God." I have heard of the LDS perspective that spirit is refined matter! From my Catholic perspective, we'd believe the spiritual is an entirely different nature, but you probably know that! Just to clarify my view, by definition, our concept of first mover would be the first movement of existence, of coming into being; if something exists to be physically moved, it had already been brought into being! 3 hours ago, person0 said: I agree with this statement, but with limitations. I believe He can only withhold His justice because of the Atonement of Christ, not because He could just do it cause He wanted to. Obviously, this means (as previously suggested), that I personally believe the Atonement of Christ was required, and that God would not have done it had there been another way. LDS scriptures corroborate this idea: Referring back to the first thing discussed in this response, even if God created the law of justice, He cannot suspend or avoid the law without contradicting himself, therefore, He must obey it. I can't imagine any other way to comply with the law on behalf of mankind except for through an infinite atonement to overcome the punishment required for our sins. While I still don't believe God had no choice in the matter, I do believe the Crucifixion, to the extent of my knowledge, was the best way to bring about atonement, and allowed God to purchase our souls for a price! I'm sorry! I didn't mean to say God created justice. Justice is a part of His nature. There was never a time when justice did not exist and he brought it into being. To contradict justice, for instance, by not allowing a soul who'd fully rejected Him to enter Hell, He'd be contradicting His nature. But if he brought some physical or otherwise created principle into being, such as energy, it would not contradict His nature to withdraw it from existence. Do you get the logic I'm following from my perspective there? But mercy doesn't contradict justice! And I may not know exactly how God might accomplish reconciliation with the human race if He had chosen a different way to save us, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. He is infinite, after all, and knows infinitely more than I! 3 hours ago, person0 said: I believe that God will always be as merciful as He possibly can be, and will give all of His children the maximum blessing He can give them. However, He is limited by two principles that He himself established. The first and obvious one that has been discussed is the law of justice. Mercy can be extended insomuch as the law of justice is fulfilled. The Atonement of Christ fulfilled the law, therefore mercy is extended to those who follow the 'rules' established by Christ to receive/participate in His atonement. The second is that God has given mankind the ability to choose for ourselves, therefore, we are inhibited during mortality from fully enjoying His mercy in situations where we choose wrongfully and bring it upon ourselves, but also in situations where other's choose wrongfully and bring pain upon us. God does not stop those who rape and murder and lie, etc, even though they bring pain and suffering to many, because in many cases doing so would be in contradiction to the agency ('free will') he has bestowed upon us, and He cannot/will not contradict Himself. However, the Atonement of Christ, at least to the LDS paradigm, is infinitely capable to overcome this as well. I think this is another point where our perspectives will have to diverge! If it would contradict Himself to remove something he'd established, wouldn't it be contradicting Himself to establish it in the first place? Besides, He contradicts laws He's created all the time in the Bible. The multiplication of the fish and loaves? Lazarus rising from the dead? Water becoming wine? He's not operating within His established structures there... water doesn't spontaneously switch into wine! Concerning His mercy, in Catholicism, that's His supreme attribute, more than that, we'd say He is mercy; it's not just an element He considers like we do. He is merciful to all those who throw themselves into the care of His mercy, regardless of whether they're following the rules perfectly. His mercy extends to all His children throughout their lives. For the matter of freewill, He doesn't interfere because He's chosen to allow us to keep our freewill. He's allowing us to have it. I'd say that doesn't mean he can't take it away, He just doesn't. Anyway, that's my two cents. 3 hours ago, person0 said: My original question on this was solely to get your perspective. I agree with the above completely, and so does the Book of Mormon: Oops, did I say something wrong? I thought I was giving my perspective... I'm sorry about my tone if it was insulting somehow! I didn't know that was an LDS perspective, especially since I know Hell is a less prominent concept(?), so you'll have to forgive me for not recognizing you'd agree! 3 hours ago, person0 said: My opinion, and LDS doctrine agrees with this as well. Once again, I was asking only for your perspective. I'm sorry... once again, I thought that was what I was doing! I'll try to make it clearer? Was it that my language was too descriptive? Sometimes just saying "love" seems like it may come across as an understatement, since it's such a universal word in this language (i.e. "I love this lemonade!" ). Sometimes adding descriptors helps make it more specific to what I want to get across. I'm glad you agree; it's a wonderful doctrine to keep! 3 hours ago, person0 said: Okay, so in summation, as would be expected, we agree on some things and disagree on others. However, I do maintain that it is logical, even from the traditional Christian (non-lds) perspective to suggest that because God is unchanging, it can also be said that He cannot change. As a result He must obey any law He creates and cannot circumvent His own law. Not necessarily because of being technically incapable of doing it, but because it would cause Him to contradict Himself and to do that would be to change. Which is why I love it that the Book of Mormon prophets wrote the statement 'if so, God would cease to be God'. Of course, that would never happen, God will never cease to be God, therefore He will not change, and He will obey eternal laws, regardless of whether one believes He created them, or whether they exist co-eternally and independent. Yes, it's not only speculation but definitive truth with the Catholic Church that God Himself does not change (His Being), so I do agree with your perspective as far as that goes! However, things He creates do not impact his Divine Nature and thus can be uncreated without issue. And, yes, we agree on some things to a degree and disagree on others... but that just means we've fulfilled the point of the thread! I hope all that made my perspective clearer! God bless! person0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
person0 Posted March 28, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 32 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said: By what you're defining as change, He would have changed when He established the rule you say He can't change now. I like the way you put that, however, since I believe the laws to which I was referring are co-eternal with God, an have existed either as part of Him or along side Him for all eternity, there was never a moment when he 'established' them. They simply always have been. Specifically in this case, I was only intending to refer to His justice and mercy, both. 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: I'm sorry! I didn't mean to say God created justice. Justice is a part of His nature. There was never a time when justice did not exist and he brought it into being. To contradict justice, for instance, by not allowing a soul who'd fully rejected Him to enter Hell, He'd be contradicting His nature. But if he brought some physical or otherwise created principle into being, such as energy, it would not contradict His nature to withdraw it from existence. Do you get the logic I'm following from my perspective there? Okay so based on this it appears we actually agree, and even the thing I just wrote in the previous paragraph was me responding to me not understanding you not understanding me, haha. Except that your definition of 'created' and mine are entirely different because of your belief of creation ex-nihilo and my belief of creation ex-materia. 39 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said: Just to clarify my view, by definition, our concept of first mover would be the first movement of existence, of coming into being; if something exists to be physically moved, it had already been brought into being! I understand what you are saying. But just to make sure my view is also clear, because I accept the idea of creation ex-materia, in actuality I believe that there is no such thing as a 'first movement of existence'. There is not anything that has ever been brought into being in the sense of not existing at all and then existing all of a sudden. Everything that will ever exist has always existed without beginning and without end, at least in the form of unorganized matter. However, the transformation of unorganized (chaotic) matter into organized animate and inanimate entities has occurred only as moved upon by God and His power and influence. 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: But mercy doesn't contradict justice! And I may not know exactly how God might accomplish reconciliation with the human race if He had chosen a different way to save us, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. We will have to agree to disagree on this too I suppose. To me the simplest definition of justice is, 'to receive exactly what you deserve'. The simplest definition of mercy is, 'to receive more than you deserve'. The idea that someone could deserve more than they deserve is illogical and contradictory to me. So to me Justice and Mercy are opposites. However, I believe that both are a an intrinsic part of God's nature, and He will always fulfill both by the most prudent and efficient means possible. Theoretically I could accept the notion that God might be technically capable of having developed an alternative method to save us. However, I still would have to reject that He would ever actually do it on the premise that He would have done it that way if it had been more prudent and efficient. He chose the atonement, therefore the atonement must be the only perfect way, which to me the same as saying it is the only way it could be done by a perfect God. Based on this I suppose we might not be entirely in disagreement on the 'alternative method' idea, perhaps just different paradigms. 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: I think this is another point where our perspectives will have to diverge! If it would contradict Himself to remove something he'd established, wouldn't it be contradicting Himself to establish it in the first place? Besides, He contradicts laws He's created all the time in the Bible. The multiplication of the fish and loaves? Lazarus rising from the dead? Water becoming wine? He's not operating within His established structures there... water doesn't spontaneously switch into wine! This is kind of a rehash of my first paragraph but as a reminder, He didn't actually 'establish' the laws to which I am referring, they have always been a part of him. Also, please be reminded as I mentioned in the previous post, a commandment is not the same as an eternal law. Also, I failed to make clear that the laws of physics and mortality that affect us are also not something I would refer to as eternal laws that apply to the context in which I was speaking. In this situation I was referring to 3 eternal principles only; justice, mercy, and agency (free will). To me unlimited fish and loaves does not contradict anything. The way I see it, God takes even the air, reformulates the neutrons, protons and electrons that comprise the atoms of oxygen, etc, to now be atoms that are organized as fish and bread, easy peasy! Water to wine, same thing, hydrogen and oxygen molecules are re-organized into different molecules that compose wine. The inability of mankind to create and command in this way does not comprise an eternal law that must not be contradicted, just a characteristic of our mortality. Philosophically, the only things that must not be contradicted are things that existed as part of God 'in the beginning' (i.e. all of His characteristics/traits). 2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said: I'm sorry... once again, I thought that was what I was doing! You were, I was just restating/overstating my objective. 2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said: I hope all that made my perspective clearer! It did! And I hope I have appropriately clarified my thoughts and perspectives as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaryJehanne Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, person0 said: I like the way you put that, however, since I believe the laws to which I was referring are co-eternal with God, an have existed either as part of Him or along side Him for all eternity, there was never a moment when he 'established' them. They simply always have been. Specifically in this case, I was only intending to refer to His justice and mercy, both. Thank you. Yes, I think I understand your perspective on this now! You believe God is not self-defined, but is still objectively defined by eternal principles outside of himself? Did I get that right? (For me, I'd say the eternal principles actually have an intelligence, and that's God! So my God would be just the step above yours.) 9 hours ago, person0 said: Okay so based on this it appears we actually agree, and even the thing I just wrote in the previous paragraph was me responding to me not understanding you not understanding me, haha. Except that your definition of 'created' and mine are entirely different because of your belief of creation ex-nihilo and my belief of creation ex-materia. Oh, okay! Great! So our main difference there is again that your perspective is that justice and mercy define God, but are outside of Him. But on the concept of ex-materia, I'm still confused about how you hold your viewpoint... not everything can be explained by matter, even refined matter that is unseeable. For instance, what is love? 9 hours ago, person0 said: I understand what you are saying. But just to make sure my view is also clear, because I accept the idea of creation ex-materia, in actuality I believe that there is no such thing as a 'first movement of existence'. There is not anything that has ever been brought into being in the sense of not existing at all and then existing all of a sudden. Everything that will ever exist has always existed without beginning and without end, at least in the form of unorganized matter. However, the transformation of unorganized (chaotic) matter into organized animate and inanimate entities has occurred only as moved upon by God and His power and influence. I see. From my perspective, I really couldn't stand by that though, since it rings markedly of certain brands of materialism and nominalism. If I accepted the concept you are suggesting, I'd be accepting a version of God that is really just a superman, but not any sort of ultimate power, more along the lines of the gods of the Greeks and Romans, such as Zeus and Apollo. Do you see why I'm meeting a block here? 9 hours ago, person0 said: We will have to agree to disagree on this too I suppose. To me the simplest definition of justice is, 'to receive exactly what you deserve'. The simplest definition of mercy is, 'to receive more than you deserve'. The idea that someone could deserve more than they deserve is illogical and contradictory to me. So to me Justice and Mercy are opposites. However, I believe that both are a an intrinsic part of God's nature, and He will always fulfill both by the most prudent and efficient means possible. Theoretically I could accept the notion that God might be technically capable of having developed an alternative method to save us. However, I still would have to reject that He would ever actually do it on the premise that He would have done it that way if it had been more prudent and efficient. He chose the atonement, therefore the atonement must be the only perfect way, which to me the same as saying it is the only way it could be done by a perfect God. Based on this I suppose we might not be entirely in disagreement on the 'alternative method' idea, perhaps just different paradigms. I see what you mean! I didn't explain myself well in that area. I'd say a person can 'deserve more than they deserve' in the eyes of creation if God has decreed it. We would deserve it not by our own merits, but by the merit of his Divine Will. For instance, humans have an innate dignity, but that dignity only comes because God has bestowed it on us, because He values us in His love. We don't deserve dignity of our own merit. (I realize we'll probably disagree on that, because our concept of the human person is radically different as well!) But, wait, how can God have two opposites in His being? From my perspective, that would make Him self-contradictory... For example, I can't both be dead and alive in the same sense at the same time, I can't be both human and non-human, and I can't be both truly loving and hateful. So, if God is both merciful and just, they must not be opposites, otherwise His very being would be an absurdity, such as having a person who is both dead and alive. I do agree the Atonement is the best method as far as I know! And I think I'm agreeing with you on the rest of it, actually. He could have done it differently, from my perspective, but I say He never would do it differently, since He did do it this way, and He always makes the perfect choice, since He's perfection itself (which is pretty close to what you're saying)! 9 hours ago, person0 said: This is kind of a rehash of my first paragraph but as a reminder, He didn't actually 'establish' the laws to which I am referring, they have always been a part of him. Also, please be reminded as I mentioned in the previous post, a commandment is not the same as an eternal law. Also, I failed to make clear that the laws of physics and mortality that affect us are also not something I would refer to as eternal laws that apply to the context in which I was speaking. In this situation I was referring to 3 eternal principles only; justice, mercy, and agency (free will). To me unlimited fish and loaves does not contradict anything. The way I see it, God takes even the air, reformulates the neutrons, protons and electrons that comprise the atoms of oxygen, etc, to now be atoms that are organized as fish and bread, easy peasy! Water to wine, same thing, hydrogen and oxygen molecules are re-organized into different molecules that compose wine. The inability of mankind to create and command in this way does not comprise an eternal law that must not be contradicted, just a characteristic of our mortality. Philosophically, the only things that must not be contradicted are things that existed as part of God 'in the beginning' (i.e. all of His characteristics/traits). That does make your perspective clearer; thank you! 9 hours ago, person0 said: You were, I was just restating/overstating my objective. It did! And I hope I have appropriately clarified my thoughts and perspectives as well. Oh, good, on both accounts! I think you've expressed them clearly! May Christ bless you! Edited March 28, 2018 by MaryJehanne person0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane_Doe Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 Great discussion going on here! 2 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said: Thank you. Yes, I think I understand your perspective on this now! You believe God is not self-defined, but is still objectively defined by eternal principles outside of himself? Did I get that right? (For me, I'd say the eternal principles actually have an intelligence, and that's God! So my God would be just the step above yours.) Not quite. Righteousness is part of God-- it's outside of Him, and yet also inside of Him completely. I find it easier to explain it this ways: LDS don't see what is "right" as being defined as "something God just randomly decided that to be defined as 'right' ". 2 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said: Oh, okay! Great! So our main difference there is again that your perspective is that justice and mercy define God, but are outside of Him. Again, outside AND internalized. They are insperable. 2 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said: But on the concept of ex-materia, I'm still confused about how you hold your viewpoint... not everything can be explained by matter, even refined matter that is unseeable. For instance, what is love? Obviously love is an emotion. (I feel like I'm missing part of the question). 2 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said: I see. From my perspective, I really couldn't stand by that though, since it rings markedly of certain brands of materialism and nominalism. If I accepted the concept you are suggesting, I'd be accepting a version of God that is really just a superman, but not any sort of ultimate power, more along the lines of the gods of the Greeks and Romans, such as Zeus and Apollo. Do you see why I'm meeting a block here? Trying to say this respectful, apologizing if I fall short. God is love, justice, mercy, perfection, glory, grace etc. LDS see the 'first mover' idea as being outside of scripture (obviously we see differently on this matter). For me... I see a lot of Creedal Christians get very deflated without the idea of a 'first mover'. For me... it is odd-- like "is God described in scripture somehow not good enough for you?" Again-- I mean NO disrepect there, and apologize in the very likely event I feel short. But that is my knee-jerk reaction as an LDS person. 2 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said: I see what you mean! I didn't explain myself well in that area. I'd say a person can 'deserve more than they deserve' in the eyes of creation if God has decreed it. Ah, for LDS that's a contradiction-- like the round square. God doesn't do that. The desired rewards (good or ill) are what they are, God cannot just ignore that or decree squares to be round. When God shows us mercy through the atonement, it is because Christ's sacrifice is fulfilling the negative condenses we ourselves deserved. Hence God satisfies justice, and shows us mercy. 2 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said: But, wait, how can God have two opposites in His being? From my perspective, that would make Him self-contradictory... For example, I can't both be dead and alive in the same sense at the same time, I can't be both human and non-human, and I can't be both truly loving and hateful. So, if God is both merciful and just, they must not be opposites, otherwise His very being would be an absurdity, such as having a person who is both dead and alive. They are not opposites in the fact that they cancel each other out. 2 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said: May Christ bless you! You as well! person0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted March 28, 2018 Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: Obviously love is an emotion. (I feel like I'm missing part of the question). If I may interject in your lovely conversation with @MaryJehanne. I don't agree with this. Love is not an emotion. Love is the ultimate application of Free Will. Or in other words, Love is an Action (Decision) more so than an Emotion. Emotion is the decision expressed. Here's an illustration: God loves us. Applying Love as an emotion clearly drastically minimizes the implication of the sentence God loves us. So, how this applies to the conversation about God: In LDS understanding, what makes God God is not his material substance (as we also are of the same material substance - or at least the potential for such material substance - and we clearly are not God). Rather, what makes God God is the totality of His Will with His Perfect Knowledge. If we bring this to a childlike example - If liking vanilla is the sum total of God's will then Beelzebub liking chocolate makes him not God. Did that make sense? Jane_Doe and person0 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
person0 Posted March 28, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2018 54 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said: You believe God is not self-defined, but is still objectively defined by eternal principles outside of himself? Did I get that right? Pretty much. I would say God is both of those things. To me saying God is Justice, and yet also saying that justice as a true principle exists independent of God are both true statements. Like @Jane_Doe phrased it, they are both outside and internal. 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: But on the concept of ex-materia, I'm still confused about how you hold your viewpoint... not everything can be explained by matter, even refined matter that is unseeable. For instance, what is love? Love can be received by all intelligent beings, and through the Light of Christ can be enacted by the same, it is an inherent characteristic of the perfection of God. Like justice and mercy, God is benevolent. Applicably, LDS scripture and doctrine also dictates that the intelligence that each of us posses is eternal: Quote Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.(D&C 93:29) 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: I see. From my perspective, I really couldn't stand by that though, since it rings markedly of certain brands of materialism and nominalism. If I accepted the concept you are suggesting, I'd be accepting a version of God that is really just a superman, but not any sort of ultimate power, more along the lines of the gods of the Greeks and Romans, such as Zeus and Apollo. Do you see why I'm meeting a block here? Yes, I can understand your perspective, with exception that the Greek and Roman gods were imperfect (although powerful) beings, where God is Perfect. I would suggest that I think the primary thing that is causing that 'block' is our difference in opinion on what it means to be Omnipotent. To me, I can't imagine the idea of something being created from nothing, and yet to me that has no logical contradiction to God's Omnipotence. 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: I'd say a person can 'deserve more than they deserve' in the eyes of creation if God has decreed it. We would deserve it not by our own merits, but by the merit of his Divine Will. I see what you are saying, but the way you wrote it it's not something I could get on board with. I don't think God could decree something to deserve more than it deserves, except via the use of the atonement of Christ to fulfill justice (goes back to how I think God is not capable of circumventing justice). In that case, it is still not mankind who deserves it, but it is God himself who deserves to be permitted to bestow it upon us. I'm willing to bet you probably agree on this for the most part, but we just have different ways of explaining it. 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: For instance, humans have an innate dignity, but that dignity only comes because God has bestowed it on us, because He values us in His love. We don't deserve dignity of our own merit. I agree with this part completely, but somehow it seems to be contradictory to the first part of that same paragraph. Oh well. 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: But, wait, how can God have two opposites in His being? From my perspective, that would make Him self-contradictory. . . I knew you were going to say that! The answer is that they are opposites to each other, but they are both congruous with perfection. Justice and mercy are two sides of the same coin. Without mercy, God could only create perfect beings, or would risk losing all of His creations, without justice, all of creation would no longer be subjected to God's rule, but would be free to act without consequence. That wouldn't work. Justice and mercy are not opposite in the sense that Good and Evil are opposite. It's kind of like a magnet, there is a positive and a negative side to the magnet. If you chop off the negative side, then half of the positive side of the magnet immediately becomes a new negative side, because the magnet cannot exist without both. Both the positive and negative charge of a magnet are good things that can be used in good and productive ways. 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: I do agree the Atonement is the best method as far as I know! And I think I'm agreeing with you on the rest of it, actually. He could have done it differently, from my perspective, but I say He never would do it differently, since He did do it this way, and He always makes the perfect choice, since He's perfection itself (which is pretty close to what you're saying)! Yay!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaryJehanne Posted March 29, 2018 Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: Great discussion going on here! Not quite. Righteousness is part of God-- it's outside of Him, and yet also inside of Him completely. I find it easier to explain it this ways: LDS don't see what is "right" as being defined as "something God just randomly decided that to be defined as 'right' ". Hm... Okay, thank you for explain that! Perhaps I'm not understand correctly, but isn't that the same as what I said? Did I miss something? Let me try again... So he's not self-defined, he's intrinsically defined by righteousness, which is an Ultimate Principle that exists outside of all the rest of reality? For that last part, I never meant to say that God randomly decided what was right and wrong; I mean that He is righteousness itself and the only reason there is a right is because it is Him! 11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: Obviously love is an emotion. (I feel like I'm missing part of the question). Sorry, I was looking more for anatess2's answer! You know, love as an act of the will? Infatuation and some affection are emotions, but true love isn't an emotion... God died for love of us, but He probably wasn't getting many positive feelings when he was being nailed to the cross! Since we kind of missed each other on that one (it's hard because the English language doesn't have many distinct words to express the different types of love!); I can try another! What is fairness? What material structures make up fairness? Do you get where I'm trying to go with this? (Sorry I wasn't clear enough earlier!) 11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: God is love, justice, mercy, perfection, glory, grace etc. LDS see the 'first mover' idea as being outside of scripture (obviously we see differently on this matter). For me... I see a lot of Creedal Christians get very deflated without the idea of a 'first mover'. For me... it is odd-- like "is God described in scripture somehow not good enough for you?" Again-- I mean NO disrepect there, and apologize in the very likely event I feel short. But that is my knee-jerk reaction as an LDS person. Sorry, this may sound silly, but I'm not familiar with the term Creedal Christians! It vaguely rings a bell, but I can't put my figure on it's exact definition! How come they get deflated? Thank you for saying you didn't mean any disrespect! To the "is God described in scripture somehow not good enough for you?", you'd have to understand, though, as you pointed out to a degree, that from my perspective I could validly just turn that statement back to you, like we were in a game of ping-pong! I appreciate that you wanted to give me your opinion, and I certainly accept it as that, but do you see how that wouldn't be able to make much more of an impact than a little bit of pain, since it's a claim that's more subjective than objective in the way you've presented it? There wasn't really anything added after it to support it, but I have evidence from the source you're suggesting (the Bible) to the contrary (such as Colossians 1:16-17, Jeremiah 4:23, Isaiah 45:7, Job 26:7) and none to its defense. So, although I know you did preface and close this with an expression of your good intentions, do you see how it's still hard for it to be fruitful, even as just a sharing of perspective? Thank you all the same, though! 11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: Ah, for LDS that's a contradiction-- like the round square. God doesn't do that. The desired rewards (good or ill) are what they are, God cannot just ignore that or decree squares to be round. When God shows us mercy through the atonement, it is because Christ's sacrifice is fulfilling the negative condenses we ourselves deserved. Hence God satisfies justice, and shows us mercy. I think I understand what you're saying! But I would add, from my Catholic perspective, that if justice were required to run its course, the Atonement would never have happened in the first place, since in pure justice, the Crucifixion would never have happen. The Atonement itself was an act of mercy, so if He needed the Atonement to offer mercy, the reasoning would become circular and the Atonement could never have happened. Likewise, the merit from the Crucifixion doesn't automatically apply to our sins in its nature. It was infinitely valuable by the suffering Christ endured, which He then chose to offer for our sins. By offering Himself, He excused us from His justice, since in justice we did not deserve even for Him to pay our debt for us. And, as I think I mentioned somewhere before in this thread, He was actively merciful in the Old Testament, before the Atonement! Some Bible passages I'd point to would be James 2:13, Roman 9:15, Romans 9:18, and Romans 5:8. 11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: They are not opposites in the fact that they cancel each other out. I don't believe there are different forms of opposites! 'Opposite' means opposing, conflicting, irreconcilable, clashing, contrary, contradictory, to take synonyms from a dictionary. From my perspective, I'd say there's a difference between opposites and complements! Opposites are contrary, like goodness and evil. Complements are different enough to be a separate principle, but at the heart of it have a fundamental basis so that they can work together. So life and death are opposites; they cancel each other out. But the human brain and the human heart are complements; together they can keep the body alive. They are different "principles", one is the central nervous system, which, for one thing, allows the heart to beat, the other is the an organ that pumps blood throughout the body which, in turn, allows the brain to work. While different, they share common ground: being made of flesh, oriented towards the life and function of the body, working together to allow it to thrive. Do you see what I'm trying to express from my perspective? Again, God bless! 11 hours ago, anatess2 said: If I may interject in your lovely conversation with @MaryJehanne. I don't agree with this. Love is not an emotion. Love is the ultimate application of Free Will. Or in other words, Love is an Action (Decision) more so than an Emotion. Emotion is the decision expressed. Here's an illustration: God loves us. Applying Love as an emotion clearly drastically minimizes the implication of the sentence God loves us. So, how this applies to the conversation about God: In LDS understanding, what makes God God is not his material substance (as we also are of the same material substance - or at least the potential for such material substance - and we clearly are not God). Rather, what makes God God is the totality of His Will with His Perfect Knowledge. If we bring this to a childlike example - If liking vanilla is the sum total of God's will then Beelzebub liking chocolate makes him not God. Did that make sense? I certainly agree with love being a decision! The emotion, in its true form, not infatuation or anything, is an expression of it, but I'd add that it's not necessary to signal love, since someone who is depressed, for example, may love God, but feel no emotion in doing so! I'm not sure if the last to parts were directed towards me, so please excuse me if they weren't! I would say goodness is a separate quality from will and knowledge! I'm not sure what you mean exactly by the last sentence (I'm sorry!), but I'd be happy to try to share my perspective on it if you were able to break it down some more for me! Thank you for adding your perspective to the pool! @person0 I'm so sorry, but I think I'm going to have to try to write my reply to you tomorrow! Thank you and God bless! Edited March 29, 2018 by MaryJehanne person0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted March 29, 2018 Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: I certainly agree with love being a decision! The emotion, in its true form, not infatuation or anything, is an expression of it, but I'd add that it's not necessary to signal love, since someone who is depressed, for example, may love God, but feel no emotion in doing so! You mentioned somewhere about different types of love. This was popularized by Freud, I believe. I don’t claim to fully understand what Freud actually meant by “types” but from my meager understanding, I don’t think there are different types of love. There is only one type of love and that is the love of Christ. Love, as willed by God, is that will/desire to bring someone with us closer to Him. There may be different expressions of it like physical intimacy is one of the most majestic expressions of love that comes with procreative power but this expression is bound by God’s Law solely under the covenant of matrimony. Expressing love through physical intimacy with somebody not one’s spouse is, therefore, not Love. It’s a mockery of it as it drives us farther from God. Make sense? But that love between spouses is the same love for our children and the same love for our neighbors. It is our desire to bring all these people with us closer to God. Christ does not say love your spouse more or differently or love ourselves more. Helping our neighbor through debilitating illness, for example, is an expression of love that is righteous. But helping our neighbor through illness by mercy killing is not love as it brings us farther from God. So, as we love, we become more and more like God to eventually become one with Him. 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: I'm not sure if the last to parts were directed towards me, so please excuse me if they weren't! I would say goodness is a separate quality from will and knowledge! I'm not sure what you mean exactly by the last sentence (I'm sorry!), but I'd be happy to try to share my perspective on it if you were able to break it down some more for me! God created us because He loves us. That is - He wills for us to be One with Him. I think goodness is not separate from will and knowledge. God’s will is good. If it is not good, it is not God. That’s what I meant with that vanilla/chocolate example. By the way, I was devout Roman Catholic for 30 years before becoming LDS, to the sorrow of my loving mother. She still sends gifts to the Carmelite sisters to ceaselessly pray for my salvation. person0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProDeo Posted March 29, 2018 Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 13 hours ago, anatess2 said: Love is not an emotion. Love is the ultimate application of Free Will. Or in other words, Love is an Action (Decision) more so than an Emotion. Emotion is the decision expressed. Yep. Or in a one-liner, Love is serving the other. Jesus live in a nutshell. person0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
person0 Posted March 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2018 I know you are planning to respond to me tomorrow, but I wanted to take additional note of a couple of things you said in your most recent post. 49 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said: What is fairness? What material structures make up fairness? Do you get where I'm trying to go with this? I am not sure that you or I could think of a principle that exists in physical or logical form that I would say at it's root was created rather than being an application of true principles that simply exist. That said, to your initial question, google defines fairness as, 'impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination'. Therefore I would say fairness has existed with God from the beginning as an attribute of justice. As mentioned in the OP, the scriptures teach us that God is not a 'respecter of persons' I think the above definition of fairness is an excellent example of what that means. The vernacular use of the idea of fairness often converts it into pseudo-justice that suits individual circumstances rather than actually being impartial. On another note, I have really liked anatess2's answers about the principle of love, and find myself in agreement with her. 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: . . . you'd have to understand, though, as you pointed out to a degree, that from my perspective I could validly just turn that statement back to you, like we were in a game of ping-pong! You are absolutely correct about this. I agree 100%. Generally, in an appeal to scripture, it is an argument over interpretation. That's why any scriptures I have used thus far have only been to substantiate that my belief is based on source material I recognize as valid, and not an attempt to 'prove' that I am right. This thread is more of an exercise in discussing the logic related to God's methods anyway. 1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said: if justice were required to run its course, the Atonement would never have happened in the first place, since in pure justice, the Crucifixion would never have happen. I interpret that you are referring to the justice of God being postponed rather than immediate at each occurrence of sin. If so, at face value, what you are saying is completely accurate, however, there is another principle at play. To the LDS paradigm, the atonement of Christ was valid and applicable before it ever happened. How? Because God's 'credit score' is infinity. To conceptualize this, let us consider that before the atonement was fulfilled, God was indebted to comply with justice on behalf of the sins of mankind. The date that justice would be paid was already set forth (when the atonement was fulfilled), and since God has a perfect 'credit score', it was already 100% known and understood that the debt would be paid, and therefore all things could proceed as though the debt had already been paid. 2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said: Likewise, the merit from the Crucifixion doesn't automatically apply to our sins in its nature. One way that we agree with you on this is that to the LDS paradigm, the crucifixion is not really the part of the atonement of Christ that applies to sin. The atonement is a 3 part event: Suffering for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, death (which just so happened to be via crucifixion), and the resurrection. Without all 3 parts the atonement is considered incomplete in LDS theology, because both spiritual death and physical death had to be overcome, and simply dying on the cross was not alone sufficient to pay the price of sin. Anyway, everything else I think was addressed in my first response. Forgive me in advance for the pile on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaryJehanne Posted March 30, 2018 Report Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) On 3/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, person0 said: Pretty much. I would say God is both of those things. To me saying God is Justice, and yet also saying that justice as a true principle exists independent of God are both true statements. Like @Jane_Doe phrased it, they are both outside and internal. Oh! Okay, I think I get it now! It's kind of like justice is a material He's made from, in a sense? Or an ingredient? Justice exists outside of God as an eternal principle that was used to make God? On 3/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, person0 said: Love can be received by all intelligent beings, and through the Light of Christ can be enacted by the same, it is an inherent characteristic of the perfection of God. Like justice and mercy, God is benevolent. Applicably, LDS scripture and doctrine also dictates that the intelligence that each of us posses is eternal: Ah, okay! I see. What I was trying to get at by asking that question is the nature of the thing "love". From my perspective, I'd sat the natural world is only one plane of existence, with the spiritual being something entirely different and supernatural. What I'm asking is, from your perspective, what you believe about love if everything's refined matter? What material structures make up love? On 3/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, person0 said: Yes, I can understand your perspective, with exception that the Greek and Roman gods were imperfect (although powerful) beings, where God is Perfect. I would suggest that I think the primary thing that is causing that 'block' is our difference in opinion on what it means to be Omnipotent. To me, I can't imagine the idea of something being created from nothing, and yet to me that has no logical contradiction to God's Omnipotence. Yes! (Yeah, the ancient Greco-Roman gods were awful! It makes me sad to think that's all those poor people knew about as far as God goes ) Yes, I see your point. I think that's a part of it, but I'd still propose that perhaps omnipotence isn't the most direct term for what's being defined, since omni simply means all? If omnipotence is having all power, but god lacks power in several circumstances and ways, that seems to be less than all power... It seems that the eternal principles have all the power, since they've defined everything, even god. On 3/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, person0 said: I see what you are saying, but the way you wrote it it's not something I could get on board with. I don't think God could decree something to deserve more than it deserves, except via the use of the atonement of Christ to fulfill justice (goes back to how I think God is not capable of circumventing justice). In that case, it is still not mankind who deserves it, but it is God himself who deserves to be permitted to bestow it upon us. I'm willing to bet you probably agree on this for the most part, but we just have different ways of explaining it. Yeah, I think that's probably true, except my perspective would still hold back on the not circumventing justice part! You're right; I didn't mean we'd actually deserve more intrinsically. On 3/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, person0 said: I agree with this part completely, but somehow it seems to be contradictory to the first part of that same paragraph. Oh well. No, sorry, that's what I meant in my first part. I just phrased it really confusingly, I guess. On 3/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, person0 said: I knew you were going to say that! The answer is that they are opposites to each other, but they are both congruous with perfection. Justice and mercy are two sides of the same coin. Without mercy, God could only create perfect beings, or would risk losing all of His creations, without justice, all of creation would no longer be subjected to God's rule, but would be free to act without consequence. That wouldn't work. Justice and mercy are not opposite in the sense that Good and Evil are opposite. It's kind of like a magnet, there is a positive and a negative side to the magnet. If you chop off the negative side, then half of the positive side of the magnet immediately becomes a new negative side, because the magnet cannot exist without both. Both the positive and negative charge of a magnet are good things that can be used in good and productive ways. For true opposites, my perspective would be based on the foundational principle that one thing cannot be both itself and its opposite at the same time and in the same respect. In the magnet example, one end is the south pole and one end is the north pole. One side is only ever the north pole and one side is only ever the south pole. One side is not both the north and the south pole. There are two places for the opposites to reside, at the end of the left and the right (or top and bottom), and the opposites never enter one part together. God is not a magnet, with half of Himself being only Justice and half being only Mercy! He is both, at the same time. From that, I'd surmise that they must not be intrinsic, true opposites. Another proof to explain my perspective would be this. The opposite of justice is injustice. The opposite of mercy is mercilessness. If justice is the opposite of mercy, mercy must be unjust, and if mercy is the opposite of justice, justice must be merciless. But if God is Mercy and Justice, being merciless is a contradiction to His nature and being unjust is contrary to His nature. St. Thomas Aquinas addressed this issue, saying: “God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against his justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally or mercifully." And: “The case is the same with one who pardons an offense committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the apostle [Paul] calls remission a forgiving: "Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you" (Eph 4:32). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness thereof. Thus it is said, "Mercy exalts itself above judgment" (Jas 2:13).” On 3/28/2018 at 1:25 PM, person0 said: Yay!!!! Edited March 30, 2018 by MaryJehanne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.