Why was the Atonement of Jesus Christ Necessary?

[anatess2]

I am so late to this topic and there's almost 4 pages of long deep texts that I need to go through to get the full conversation.  I've just been catching a few paragraphs here and there and responding to those in isolation.

So, I don't know if what I'm gonna say here has already been delved at or not but I thought I'd just post a few basic thoughts here.

First and foremost:  There is a NUANCED DIFFERENCE between Catholic and LDS understanding of the Atonement - especially on the Law that Justice and Mercy acts on - due to the basic difference in our understanding of 1.) the Nature of God and 2.) the Nature of Man.

1.) What makes God God is not His Substance.  We have the same substance (or the potential to be of the same substance) and clearly we are not God.  What makes God God is His Will.  The Law is the sum total of His Will that which makes Him God.

2.)  LDS do not believe in ex nihilo creation.  We believe that our consciousness (our Will) was not created by God but rather, it is an eternal entity in the same manner that God's Will is, in the same manner that matter is, in the same manner that energy is.  This, to a Catholic, is a great heresy.  In LDS understanding, God created the vessel to which our consciousness is able to Act upon (our Will exercised gaining Knowledge) because He saw us and He loved us and wants our conscious selves to gain knowledge and inherit the Knowledge that God has and shape our will to the Will that made Him God that is the condition by which God is in a state of pure Joy.  Free Will is, therefore, God's greatest gift to us - keeping us Free to attain knowledge instead of enslaved to the will of God without it.  For without Free Will we cannot be as God is.

So, @MaryJehanne mentioned that God could just enact Mercy without the need for Justice or something to that effect.  This cannot be because - as I have stated in vanilla versus chocolate example - if there was no Law that Justice and Mercy acts upon then God would cease to be God.  For this Law is the entirety of God's Will.  And it is His Will that makes Him God.  The Law demands Justice.  There's no escaping that without God ceasing to be God.  The Law demands Mercy.  There's no escaping that without God ceasing to be God.  We cannot gain knowledge without knowing evil.  Because without evil there is no good.  And because we lack knowledge, we needs be with evil to know it, hence, Adam fell.  By Law, no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God - the price, therefore, for sin is spiritual death (being removed from the presence of God), hence Adam was cast out.  So we are stuck in the state of innocence without a way to gain knowledge and be as God is without choosing to fall as Adam fell and go through spiritual death.  To be able to overcome spiritual death and be with God again, we need God to cease to be God (abandon the Law) or we need a Savior - somebody who is God, free from sin, to be put to spiritual death in our place to meet the demands of Justice and pay that price.  That is Christ.  His physical death on the cross is not the Atonement.  "Father, why have you abandoned me?" is the Atonement - that complete spiritual separation from God, a spiritual death, which is complete darkness.  Christ can rise from spiritual death (from which we cannot) and be with the Father again for Christ is God.  And Christ offered Himself to die and the Father accepted His offering because Christ and the Father is God and God is Merciful.

My most favorite chapter in the Book of Mormon is one that touches on the Atonement - 2 Nephi 2:

10 ... Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishmentwhich is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement—

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and allthings are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

Edited March 30, 2018 by anatess2

[person0]

On 3/30/2018 at 1:15 AM, MaryJehanne said:

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?

Justice is not a physical thing.  It is a logical concept.  It exists because it exists, and it is not possible for it to not exist.  Justice has no will of it's own, but can be recognized by all intelligent forms of existence.  It is a principle.  God was not made from it, because God was not made.  God did not create justice because justice was not created.  They both have existed for all eternity.  However, God is an actual physical being that exists in physical form with mental capacities.  Justice does not exist in physical form and is not a sentient entity, it exists by default because beings with the ability to think exist.  I suppose you could say that technically, if there was no such thing as intelligent existence, there would also be no such thing as justice.  However, there is and always has been and always will be intelligent forms of existence, and therefore justice, as an eternal principle will always exist to the understanding of intelligent beings.  God is the perfect purveyor and embodiment of justice.  His will always fulfills justice perfectly.  The two are independent, co-existent, and co-eternal, and yet, because of His perfections it can be said that God is Justice.  It's okay if this is very foreign to you, however, hopefully I have done a better job at explaining it this time.

On 3/30/2018 at 1:15 AM, MaryJehanne said:

What I'm asking is, from your perspective, what you believe about love if everything's refined matter? What material structures make up love?

Like justice, 'love' is a principle that exists in the mind of intelligent beings that have the capacity to love.  Since to the LDS paradigm intelligence is not something that is created, love, in its perfect form, as a concept or principle is also uncreated.  Hence it can be said that God is Love.  There has never been a moment of existence when love did not exist as part of God, and/or within the mind of God.

Not everything in the LDS purview is matter.  Thought, and the ability to think is not matter.  Even if we suppose that the ability to think is enabled by matter, thought itself is not a physical thing.  Therefore things that we consider to be eternal principles do not have to have a physical existence.

On 3/30/2018 at 1:15 AM, MaryJehanne said:

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.

Eternal principles have not defined anything.  Eternal principles exist as a default simply because of the fact that intelligent life exists.  If God were to break the law of justice, there is no higher authority that would punish Him, instead, in His perfection He would punish Himself (for lack of a better terminology).  Of course this is an absurd proposition, God would never reject, disregard, or attempt to circumvent justice, because it is a part of Him.  It is an innate characteristic of His being.

In regard to omnipotence.  All power is limited by the 'all'.  If there is something for which the power to do does not exist, it can not be considered part of the 'all'.  While it possibly can be conceived in the mind, it cannot be accomplished in reality.  For example, the age old question, 'can God create an immovable rock?'  The answer is no, He can not do that, anything He creates, He would also be able to move.  So, although you can imagine the question, the reality is not possible.  God does not lack power in any circumstance.  The power to do certain things does not exist, this is not the same as lacking power because, how can you lack something that doesn't exist?  To me, the idea of creation ex-nihilo is just that, an idea; it is not something that exists in reality, therefore, God's inability to do it is not actually a lack of power, because it cannot be done by anyone or anything, ever.

We will probably just have to agree to disagree on this.  I don't expect you to decide all of a sudden that you no longer believe in creation ex-nihilo.  However, if you want, I can link you to traditional Christian sources that agree with my definition of omnipotence (although they admittedly disagree with my belief that ex-nihilo creation is impossible).

On 3/30/2018 at 1:15 AM, MaryJehanne said:

From that, I'd surmise that they must not be intrinsic, true opposites.

I get where you're coming from.  I will attempt to phrase it in another way, and then possibly we may have to agree to disagree on this as well.  The opposite of justice is injustice.  The opposite of mercy is mercilessness.  However, in situations where justice is not fulfilled mercy = injustice.

Suppose you have two children and tell them that if they finish their homework by exactly 8pm they can get ice cream.  If one child finishes at 7:55 pm and the other finishes at 8:05 pm then by your rules, one child deserves ice cream, and one does not.  In mercy you may decide to give the other child ice cream anyway, but this is technically an unjust action.  The child that finished their homework on time would have just reason to complain, and would also no longer have reason to follow your 8 pm rule, because they have seen that you will just ignore the rule anyway.  Your mercy as the loving parent you are, with the ability to circumvent your own rule, results in injustice.

In the gospel, Jesus does the homework in advance, and then He get's the ice cream from Father.  He then makes a deal with us where He offers to share the ice cream with us.  We are unable to get the ice cream directly from Father, we have to get it from Jesus Christ, because He earned it and we didn't.  In this example, the rule was who would receive the ice cream, but there was never a rule about sharing it.

By following this method, justice was fulfilled.  The compliant child (Jesus) received the ice cream, and the non-compliant child did not.  However, when Jesus offers to share the ice cream, mercy is extended to the non-compliant child and then both principles are accomplished.

Sorry it took so long, it was Easter weekend!

[MaryJehanne]

On March 29, 2018 at 1:19 AM, anatess2 said:

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.

 

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.  

 

Happy Easter! Christ is risen!

Oh, no! What I'm discussing is a much more ancient concept.  I'm not familiar with a list of loves according to Freud, but most of what he would discuss would probably be of exclusively carnal nature. (Before diving any deeper into an explanation, I should clarify that insofar as we're discussing ultimate Love, there is only one, true, complete form of love, namely Charity (coming from a Catholic perspective of Charity not being exclusively giving money and objects to the poor, but rather selfless love).) I would not condone Freudian ideas, many of which are in direct opposition to Charity and the Church.

What I was referring to was the ancient Greek language's specific words for specific types of love, where English has only one. For instance, if someone were to say "I love ice-cream," "I love my pet," "I love my sister," "I love my spouse," and "I love my God," they would be talking about different sorts of love in each instance, using one word with varying definitions (You do not love ice-cream in the same way you love God). These Greek words would be Agápe ("'love: esp. charity; the love of God for man and of man for God.'"), Éros ("'love, mostly of the sexual passion.'"), Philia ("'affectionate regard, friendship,' usually 'between equals.'" - brotherly love), and Storge ("'love, affection' and 'especially of parents and children' It is the common or natural empathy, like that felt by parents for offspring"). The word "love" in our language is used to refer to liking someone or something, being infatuated with someone, being attracted to someone, familial affection, total selflessness (Charity), and complete adoration and worship.

Yes, I would agree with you that that is not true love, because that act intrinsically says that one person is giving all they are to the other (selflessness). When they're not married, that's a lie, because they haven't totally given of themselves (there are "no strings attached"). Yes, that can be an expression of Charity (and desirably so!), but not necessarily, even among married couples.

If you're referring to True Love, Charity, yes, that would be present in each instance. But love between spouses have different aspects than love of children and neighbors. I owe more honor and respect to my parents than I do to the person across the street. In another context, I would not worship (give total adoration to) my parents or my neighbors. I would, however, worship God. Yes, it is our desire to bring these people to God, which would be an element of Charity in that Charity wills the good of another. But that can't be the only type of love, since you couldn't apply that to God without turning the statement in on itself.

I agree, mercy killing would not be loving and is anything but merciful in nature.

Yes, He created us because He loves us and wants us to be happy with Him forever! I'm not exactly sure what you mean by goodness not being separate from will and knowledge, but I do agree that they would not be in God, since all those are intrinsic to His Nature! Goodness, knowledge, and will, however, aren't necessarily tied to each other in application to us, since someone can be good without having knowledge, and someone can have knowledge and a will, such as a demon, without goodness. Yes, I'd agree with God's will being good. His Will is His Love.

Ah, yes, I noticed you used to be Catholic. The Roman rite is beautiful.  A Ukrainian Catholic priest I know described the stylistic difference between the Western and Eastern Catholic rites being that the Eastern "is looking into heaven" and the Western "is kneeling at the foot of the cross". (Not that that's exclusive or anything! Just a way to express the different charisms.) Poor mom. That's rough on parents.  For the Divine Mercy Novena (I've been receiving it by email), I just got something about this today for day 5 from St. Faustina's diary! "Today bring to Me the souls of those who have separated themselves from My Church, and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy. During My bitter Passion they tore at My Body and Heart, that is, My Church. As they return to unity with the Church, My wounds heal and in this way they alleviate My Passion (Diary, 1218)". Why ever did you leave?

 

@ProDeo Hello!  I'd mostly agree, but maybe refine the one-liner to "willing the good of another"! (Thinking of Love as an action of the will rather than simply a physical action!)

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by MaryJehanne

[MaryJehanne]

On March 29, 2018 at 2:10 AM, person0 said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Yes, I'd agree with that to a degree (I'd say the laws grouped under the natural sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. are all created, though I would add that they are designed to reflect truths of God), but that's actually the opposite of what I'm trying to get at.  I didn't really mean anything by fairness itself, but thank you for going deeper into that; I was just selecting an abstract term, so no worries! What I'm trying to express is, some things are not matter, refined or otherwise. Where anatess mentioned that love is an action, I'd completely agree with her as well!

 Scripture is often times very clear, but people can try to twist it to fit different ideas (especially when withdrawn from Biblical, historical, theological, and philosophical contexts), and without a shared deference to an authority who can define the meaning, it's difficult to use certain passages as a foundational argument! I was mostly commenting, though, on the fact that there were no passages cited to support the idea, so it was more that it was an unfounded statement, rather than that it was the Bible.

No, I don't mean postponed, I mean excused (if I understand what you're referring to correctly!)!   If all mercy was was allotting payment for a debt, it would be merely a baseline justice, not actual mercy. Mercy is bestowed as a gift; it should flow as an abundance, giving where something is not attainable. For instance, if you had a small child (we'll say age 8, past the age of reason, to make things clearer) and she rebelliously hit you, what payment do you need to receive to forgive her? In justice, you could punish her. In mercy, you could limit the punishment, not being cruel, but still giving some so she learns her lesson: it's not good to hit Dad. But if you were to limit it, who pays the extra due? Does another child have to stand in for her so that her debt may be payed in full? If God is less capable that you or I in giving mercy, what kind of God would He be?

Yes, I've heard of that a bit! In the Catholic perspective, the garden is part of His Passion as well as the Crucifixion. It's probably more proper for me to say "Passion" than just Crucifixion when talking about the fullness of the Atonement! I don't know about "simply" dying on the cross, though! I think My Lord could have cut His finger and that's more than He ever should have suffered.

You're completely fine! It just takes me a while to write out my answers, so amongst my other day-to-day things, it's slow going.  As long as you're okay with waiting, I'm perfectly all right!

 

 

 

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

 

Happy Easter! Christ is risen!

<snip>

Love

I posit there is only one Love.  Anything else is a secular concept irrelevant to gospel principles.  I posit that when God gave us the greatest commandments He meant it just that - Love God.  Love our neighbor as ourselves.  There's no degree of difference between spouse and children and stranger across the street.  The objective is to love all of them in equal measure.  What differentiates our spouse from our children and from the stranger across the street is the expressions of love.  The love we have for our spouse is rooted in our marital covenant that comes with specific obligations.  The love we have for our children is rooted in their sealing to the marital covenant and comes with specific obligations.  This requires specific commandments distinct from the stranger across the street.  But the love is the same.

[ProDeo]

7 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

 

@ProDeo Hello!  I'd mostly agree, but maybe refine the one-liner to "willing the good of another"! (Thinking of Love as an action of the will rather than simply a physical action!)

Okay

old - Love is serving the other.

new - Love is serving the other from the goodness of the heart.

 

But wait, what to think of ?

John 14:21 - Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me.

John 15:14 - You are my friends if you do what I command you.

No sentiments or emotions involved.

 

But I get what you are trying to say and In my country the Catholics have this lovely saying - It's more blissful to give than to receive.

[MaryJehanne]

On March 30, 2018 at 12:01 PM, anatess2 said:

I am so late to this topic and there's almost 4 pages of long deep texts that I need to go through to get the full conversation.  I've just been catching a few paragraphs here and there and responding to those in isolation.

So, I don't know if what I'm gonna say here has already been delved at or not but I thought I'd just post a few basic thoughts here.

Yeah, there's a good amount of posts here!  Sounds good! I will say the two basic differences you are bringing up here have been mentioned, but they're always worth another look!

On March 30, 2018 at 12:01 PM, anatess2 said:

First and foremost:  There is a NUANCED DIFFERENCE between Catholic and LDS understanding of the Atonement - especially on the Law that Justice and Mercy acts on - due to the basic difference in our understanding of 1.) the Nature of God and 2.) the Nature of Man.

1.) What makes God God is not His Substance.  We have the same substance (or the potential to be of the same substance) and clearly we are not God.  What makes God God is His Will.  The Law is the sum total of His Will that which makes Him God.

2.)  LDS do not believe in ex nihilo creation.  We believe that our consciousness (our Will) was not created by God but rather, it is an eternal entity in the same manner that God's Will is, in the same manner that matter is, in the same manner that energy is.  This, to a Catholic, is a great heresy.  In LDS understanding, God created the vessel to which our consciousness is able to Act upon (our Will exercised gaining Knowledge) because He saw us and He loved us and wants our conscious selves to gain knowledge and inherit the Knowledge that God has and shape our will to the Will that made Him God that is the condition by which God is in a state of pure Joy.  Free Will is, therefore, God's greatest gift to us - keeping us Free to attain knowledge instead of enslaved to the will of God without it.  For without Free Will we cannot be as God is.

At first glance, yes, it does seem nuanced, but at the heart of it, the concepts are radically different, which makes sharing perspectives difficult, because in using the same term, we mean completely different things!

1) Specifically that, in LDS theology, god's will is what makes god himself is something I haven't heard before (unless I forgot something :P)! You're saying that a perfect will is what characterizes his divinity?

2) Yes, I think this second point came up pretty quickly!  (I would just add that for something to be a heresy, it has to come out of members of the Catholic Church! Arianism, for instance, would be a heresy, since it came out of members of the Church who declared it as true. The Buddhist denial of a permanent, eternal soul, however, is not, because, even though it's gravely inaccurate, it does not stem from a direct perversion of Catholicism. The LDS Church was founded by people, such as Joseph Smith, who were not coming out of the Church, so on its own, this would not be considered a formal heresy, but just the belief of another religion.)

On March 30, 2018 at 12:01 PM, anatess2 said:

1. So, @MaryJehanne mentioned that God could just enact Mercy without the need for Justice or something to that effect.  This cannot be because - as I have stated in vanilla versus chocolate example - if there was no Law that Justice and Mercy acts upon then God would cease to be God. 
2. For this Law is the entirety of God's Will.  And it is His Will that makes Him God. 
3. The Law demands Justice.  There's no escaping that without God ceasing to be God. The Law demands Mercy.  There's no escaping that without God ceasing to be God. 
4. We cannot gain knowledge without knowing evil.  Because without evil there is no good. 
5. And because we lack knowledge, we needs be with evil to know it, hence, Adam fell. 
6. By Law, no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God - the price, therefore, for sin is spiritual death (being removed from the presence of God), hence Adam was cast out.  So we are stuck in the state of innocence without a way to gain knowledge and be as God is without choosing to fall as Adam fell and go through spiritual death. 
7. To be able to overcome spiritual death and be with God again, we need God to cease to be God (abandon the Law) or we need a Savior - somebody who is God, free from sin, to be put to spiritual death in our place to meet the demands of Justice and pay that price.  That is Christ. 
8. His physical death on the cross is not the Atonement.  "Father, why have you abandoned me?" is the Atonement - that complete spiritual separation from God, a spiritual death, which is complete darkness. 
9. Christ can rise from spiritual death (from which we cannot) and be with the Father again for Christ is God.  And Christ offered Himself to die and the Father accepted His offering because Christ and the Father is God and God is Merciful.

My goodness, anatess, that's a bunch of stuff! I'lll try to unpack it as best I can.  (As you noticed, I numbered them to make answering easier!)

1. My perspective has been that Mercy is an ultimate, overflowing fulfillment of Justice, and that God is limitless in his Love (Mercy). There seems to be an assumption here I'm not familiar with! What law is Justice and Mercy acting upon? I'm a little confused by this! Can you help me understand what you mean?

2. His Will makes Him God? How so?

3. From my perspective, ff He's being forced to do these things, He's not actually just or merciful! If these don't stem from Him, but He has to abide by them or cease to exist, He's being controlled.

4. I don't understand how you've arrived at this first conclusion! Without evil there is no good? This would make God reliant on evil. I'd turn it around and say without Good, there is no evil. In Catholic theology, evil is only the absence of Good (God), not a yin and yang philosophy.

5. I'd cordially reject the idea that we need evil to know good. If we did, that would mean I should research the grittiest of human sins and watch and listen to the worst of salacious media, so as to know good better. That seems more than a little counter-intuitive. Are you saying Adam's fall was orchestrated?

6. Yes, no unclean thing will dwell in the Beatific Vision! But, of course, on Earth God loves to come to poor sinners. God even took on the body of a man and dwelt with sinners. Yes, the result of sin is the detriment of being without God's presence, what I would call Hell. Adam was not completely abandoned by God, though. He was turned out of the garden, but He was not banned from experiencing God. Are you saying sin is necessary? That means God must have sinned to become good. I would rather be innocent than knowledgable! Besides, in the beatific vision we could share in the knowledge of God, no fall necessary.

7. Jesus did not undergo spiritual death, sin! That is a state of being, not a neutral suffering. A soul in Hell is in a permanent state of rejection. Christ could not do that, because that would be a contrary to His nature, and such action, if anyone were to do it, would have no merit whatsoever, being far from honorable.

8. As you can understand, from my perspective, complete spiritual separation from God would be impossible for Christ, since He is God and that would mean He was completely separate from Himself. Is what you mean a complete emotional separation? God did not and could not suffer spiritual death; spiritual death belongs only to creatures who reject Him!

9. Again, I'd emphasize spiritual death is not a sacrifice, it is an evil! Christ offered Himself to die? But this was the Father's plan... Christ Himself asked that, if it be His Father's Will, that the cup pass from Him. Matthew 26:39, Matthew 26:42. 

 

I hope I understood your point of view in my responses!

[MaryJehanne]

On April 2, 2018 at 11:14 AM, person0 said:

Justice is not a physical thing.  It is a logical concept.  It exists because it exists, and it is not possible for it to not exist.  Justice has no will of it's own, but can be recognized by all intelligent forms of existence.  It is a principle.  God was not made from it, because God was not made.  God did not create justice because justice was not created.  They both have existed for all eternity.  However, God is an actual physical being that exists in physical form with mental capacities.  Justice does not exist in physical form and is not a sentient entity, it exists by default because beings with the ability to think exist.  I suppose you could say that technically, if there was no such thing as intelligent existence, there would also be no such thing as justice.  However, there is and always has been and always will be intelligent forms of existence, and therefore justice, as an eternal principle will always exist to the understanding of intelligent beings.  God is the perfect purveyor and embodiment of justice.  His will always fulfills justice perfectly.  The two are independent, co-existent, and co-eternal, and yet, because of His perfections it can be said that God is Justice.  It's okay if this is very foreign to you, however, hopefully I have done a better job at explaining it this time.

 

Like justice, 'love' is a principle that exists in the mind of intelligent beings that have the capacity to love.  Since to the LDS paradigm intelligence is not something that is created, love, in its perfect form, as a concept or principle is also uncreated.  Hence it can be said that God is Love.  There has never been a moment of existence when love did not exist as part of God, and/or within the mind of God.

Not everything in the LDS purview is matter.  Thought, and the ability to think is not matter.  Even if we suppose that the ability to think is enabled by matter, thought itself is not a physical thing.  Therefore things that we consider to be eternal principles do not have to have a physical existence.

 

Eternal principles have not defined anything.  Eternal principles exist as a default simply because of the fact that intelligent life exists.  If God were to break the law of justice, there is no higher authority that would punish Him, instead, in His perfection He would punish Himself (for lack of a better terminology).  Of course this is an absurd proposition, God would never reject, disregard, or attempt to circumvent justice, because it is a part of Him.  It is an innate characteristic of His being.

In regard to omnipotence.  All power is limited by the 'all'.  If there is something for which the power to do does not exist, it can not be considered part of the 'all'.  While it possibly can be conceived in the mind, it cannot be accomplished in reality.  For example, the age old question, 'can God create an immovable rock?'  The answer is no, He can not do that, anything He creates, He would also be able to move.  So, although you can imagine the question, the reality is not possible.  God does not lack power in any circumstance.  The power to do certain things does not exist, this is not the same as lacking power because, how can you lack something that doesn't exist?  To me, the idea of creation ex-nihilo is just that, an idea; it is not something that exists in reality, therefore, God's inability to do it is not actually a lack of power, because it cannot be done by anyone or anything, ever.

We will probably just have to agree to disagree on this.  I don't expect you to decide all of a sudden that you no longer believe in creation ex-nihilo.  However, if you want, I can link you to traditional Christian sources that agree with my definition of omnipotence (although they admittedly disagree with my belief that ex-nihilo creation is impossible).

 

I get where you're coming from.  I will attempt to phrase it in another way, and then possibly we may have to agree to disagree on this as well.  The opposite of justice is injustice.  The opposite of mercy is mercilessness.  However, in situations where justice is not fulfilled mercy = injustice.

Suppose you have two children and tell them that if they finish their homework by exactly 8pm they can get ice cream.  If one child finishes at 7:55 pm and the other finishes at 8:05 pm then by your rules, one child deserves ice cream, and one does not.  In mercy you may decide to give the other child ice cream anyway, but this is technically an unjust action.  The child that finished their homework on time would have just reason to complain, and would also no longer have reason to follow your 8 pm rule, because they have seen that you will just ignore the rule anyway.  Your mercy as the loving parent you are, with the ability to circumvent your own rule, results in injustice.

In the gospel, Jesus does the homework in advance, and then He get's the ice cream from Father.  He then makes a deal with us where He offers to share the ice cream with us.  We are unable to get the ice cream directly from Father, we have to get it from Jesus Christ, because He earned it and we didn't.  In this example, the rule was who would receive the ice cream, but there was never a rule about sharing it.

By following this method, justice was fulfilled.  The compliant child (Jesus) received the ice cream, and the non-compliant child did not.  However, when Jesus offers to share the ice cream, mercy is extended to the non-compliant child and then both principles are accomplished.

Sorry it took so long, it was Easter weekend!

Thank you! I do think I understand it better. It's not very foreign, more like a deconstruction and reorganization of similar aspects of reality. I'm just trying to figure out where you're placing the building blocks, versus where I am!

Where did Justice come from, then? Why does it exist instead of nothing?

 

Okay! I see. If it's not made of matter, what is it? What is a principle? What is the intellect?

 

Yes, but what made those principles the default? My perspective would hold that if they were not made the default, yet have no will of their own, there is not reason for them to exist at all.

While I agree the rock question is illogical, I'd add that the assumption being made is that we know of all that is possible. Simply because I can't conceive of something being possible, doesn't mean it is impossible to God. I'd also propose that the belief in ex-nihilo being impossible is an assumption as well! It is entirely possible to conceive of matter not existing. There is no reason why a tree must exist. There is nothing in its nature that is necessary to reality. There could just be nothing. And if nothing moved it into being, there should be nothing. Even nature acts on this rule within itself: nothing does anything unless it is acted upon by something else. Atheists have to fudge around this question, because they can only trace matter back so far (around the Big Bang) before it's necessary for it to have a first cause.

I would agree with their definition of omnipotence as well! My point is only that in the definition that has been proposed, additional restrictions have been added to the realm of the possible that do not belong there, since some of the things that have been declared as impossible are in fact entirely possible!

 

I'm sorry, I'm having some difficulty following your proof!  The problem seems to be a missing step or two before statement 3. How did you get from statement 1 and statement 2 to statement 3? Thank you for explaining for me!

It is within your ability to do whatever you choose with what belongs to you! (As long as it does not violate the rights of that person!) Forgiveness and Mercy belong ultimately to God and Him alone.

Is Matthew 20:9-16 unjust? "When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? [Or] am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’ Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

Is Matthew 18:23-27 unjust? "That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who decided to settle accounts with his servants. When he began the accounting, a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount. Since he had no way of paying it back, his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, his children, and all his property, in payment of the debt. At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.' Moved with compassion the master of that servant let him go and forgave him the loan."

I'd bring the quote I used earlier from St. Thomas Aquinas back again: “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, buts acts liberally or mercifully. The case is the same with one who pardons an offence committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the Apostle calls remission a forgiving; Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you (Eph 4:31). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fullness thereof. And thus it is said: Mercy exalteth [triumphs] itself about judgment (Jas 2:13).”

 

You're perfectly all right! I dropped off the map for Easter too.  

 

[person0]

13 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

Where did Justice come from, then? Why does it exist instead of nothing? . . . Yes, but what made those principles the default? My perspective would hold that if they were not made the default, yet have no will of their own, there is not reason for them to exist at all.  . . There could just be nothing. And if nothing moved it into being, there should be nothing.

Justice did not come from anywhere.  It exists because in a reality where intelligent beings exist, it is not possible for it to not exist.  Hence it is a self-existing eternal principle, and there are many others.  Things that exist do not necessitate an origin.  The question of 'where did Justice come from?' is equivalent to the question of 'where did God come from?'  I think we would both agree that God didn't come from anywhere, He has always existed.  If there was ever a moment when nothing existed, then nothing would always be.  Likewise, because there are things that do exist, it is not possible that there ever was or ever will be a moment when nothing exists.

13 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

If it's not made of matter, what is it? What is a principle? What is the intellect?

We don't know exactly what it is, but we know thought is enabled by intelligence, and intelligence is an actual thing that exists.  LDS scriptures state, " Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."  Magnetic force is not matter, it is something that is enabled when mater is organized in a particular way.  Similarly thought does not have to be matter, even if it is enabled by something that is matter, or otherwise a physical substance.  A principle is a fundamental truth.

13 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

I'd add that the assumption being made is that we know of all that is possible. Simply because I can't conceive of something being possible, doesn't mean it is impossible to God. I'd also propose that the belief in ex-nihilo being impossible is an assumption as well! It is entirely possible to conceive of matter not existing.

I do not think that it is actually possible to conceive of a state of complete nothingness.  Anyone who tries will always eventually end up imagining complete white or complete black, but that is still something.  I agree that it is possible to suggest it out loud, or in text, but I do not believe it can actually be logically accomplished in the mind.  Regardless, it is somewhat irrelevant because, where you believe I am making an assumption, technically, I am not.  The reason I can say that I am not making an assumption is because LDS scripture actually specifically says, that there are things (such as intelligence) that cannot be created.  Similarly, our scriptures tell us that, "The elements are eternal".  So to our paradigm, God has already told us that He cannot create matter from nothing, which just so happens to also match up to the fact that we can't logically imagine how it could be accomplished.

13 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

Even nature acts on this rule within itself: nothing does anything unless it is acted upon by something else.

I agree with this entirely.  In fact, an oft quoted passage in the Book of Mormon indicates that there are, "both things to act and things to be acted upon."  From what I understand of your position, it appears that you would trace everything in existence back to what I might suggest is a 'spiritual equivalent of the Big Bang', where there was technically once a moment when nothing existed except for God, and then He began to create.  Clearly, however, I do not believe that such a moment ever existed.

13 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

I'm sorry, I'm having some difficulty following your proof!  The problem seems to be a missing step or two before statement 3. How did you get from statement 1 and statement 2 to statement 3? Thank you for explaining for me!
It is within your ability to do whatever you choose with what belongs to you! (As long as it does not violate the rights of that person!) Forgiveness and Mercy belong ultimately to God and Him alone.

The proof was in the example of the children, the parent, and the ice-cream.  The statements were only preparatory to set the stage for what the example would show.

Matthew 20:9-16 is completely just; both parties completely fulfilled their end of the deal.  Each participant received exactly what they deserved per terms of the agreement.

Matthew 18:23-27 is incomplete.  The mercy in the parable was conditional.  The servant did not comply with the responsibility to forgive as he was forgiven, ultimately he was 'delivered to the tormentors' until he paid all.  It emphasizes one aspect of our responsibility as Christians, forgiveness.  When we accept Christ we also agree to the 'terms and conditions' of His salvation.  It is a free gift in the sense that we could not ever earn it for ourselves, but it is not forced on us to the extent that we can never reject it or lose it through wickedness.  It is also important to note that during mortality mankind is not bound by justice the way that God is bound by justice.  In my previous example with the ice cream, most parents would probably just give the child the ice cream in kindness and mercy.  The parent can do as they see fit with their stuff with no repercussions, because the parent is not expected to be perfect.  It still is technically unjust to the child who fulfilled his obligation in exchange for the reward.  Likewise, if the parable from Matthew 18 indicated that a different servant had actually paid his debt to the master, then the master's action to forgive the servant's debt would be unjust to the servant who paid because he did not fulfill the law in regards to nonpaying servants, and he did not treat all servants equally.  The point of the parable is that with God as the master, every single person ever born is in the position of the massively indebted servant.  While we are expected to be merciful, God is required to enact justice.

I disagree with Thomas Aquinas.  His example is true, but his explanation of the example is incorrect. 'A man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred' first completely fulfills justice, and then after fulfilling it, gives more than justice requires and thus acts mercifully.  The debt was 100; by paying the first 100 the debt was paid and justice fulfilled, the second 100 was mercy.  The case is not the same with someone who pardons an offense against him; in the first example the person who owed the debt actually paid it, in the second example, the person who committed the offence did not pay the debt, but was only given mercy.  It is accurate that mercy is a gift, but justice was not fulfilled in the second example.  Once again, in mortality we are expected to forgive all and await the justice of the Lord.  However, God cannot forgive the man who sins and does not accept the payment of the punishment as offered by Christ, because God is bound by true justice.

On 4/3/2018 at 9:25 PM, MaryJehanne said:

If all mercy was was allotting payment for a debt, it would be merely a baseline justice, not actual mercy. Mercy is bestowed as a gift; it should flow as an abundance, giving where something is not attainable. . . If God is less capable that you or I in giving mercy, what kind of God would He be?

The first sentence I agree with completely.  If all Christ did was pay our debt for sin, then justice would be fulfilled, and that's all.  However, Christ did what Thomas Aquinas had as his first example, He paid the price to fulfill justice and then went beyond that to extend mercy and enable us to become 'joint heirs' with Him.  The last question, to me, is based in a false premise, and it is the foundation premise of 'The Gospel of Inclusion' which teaches that God will ultimately forgive everyone for everything.  However, to answer your question anyway, our mortal application of mercy is flawed.  Where it appears that we are being merciful, it's quite possibly the contrary.  For example, if punishment X results in person A correcting a self destructive behavior, whereas the lack of punishment X would result in person A continuing the behavior, which is the more merciful thing?  I would argue, that in this example, the punishment is the more merciful thing.  However, because we do not posses the omniscient mind of God, we can't see all and in our mortal state will generally misapply justice and mercy.  This is another reason why we need Christ, His atonement not only makes up for our sins, it also changes our character, and alleviates our imperfections that are not necessarily sinful until we are ultimately made perfect as He is perfect.

Thank you for this very thought provoking conversation, it just keeps getting better and better!

Edited April 5, 2018 by person0

[MaryJehanne]

On April 4, 2018 at 1:20 AM, anatess2 said:

I posit there is only one Love.  Anything else is a secular concept irrelevant to gospel principles.  I posit that when God gave us the greatest commandments He meant it just that - Love God.  Love our neighbor as ourselves.  There's no degree of difference between spouse and children and stranger across the street.  The objective is to love all of them in equal measure.  What differentiates our spouse from our children and from the stranger across the street is the expressions of love.  The love we have for our spouse is rooted in our marital covenant that comes with specific obligations.  The love we have for our children is rooted in their sealing to the marital covenant and comes with specific obligations.  This requires specific commandments distinct from the stranger across the street.  But the love is the same.

Yes, I know you're assuming there's only one love, but I'm trying to discuss why! What I mean is that there is the Supernatural Love and the natural loves, which are good, but lesser. In the Bible, these different loves are referenced, such as in Matthew when Jesus tells Peter He loves him, but uses Agape. Christ loves Peter with His entire heart. Peter replies with Philia. We're friends. Christ continues to ask him if he loves Him, intimating that Philia is not enough, it is not equal. This nuance is missed in the English translation because of the one word for love. 

In the Gospels, Christ also demands a higher degree, more love. In Matthew 10:37: "He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me." And in Luke 14:26: "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brother and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

 

On April 4, 2018 at 4:38 AM, ProDeo said:

Okay

old - Love is serving the other.

new - Love is serving the other from the goodness of the heart.

 

But wait, what to think of ?

John 14:21 - Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me.

John 15:14 - You are my friends if you do what I command you.

No sentiments or emotions involved.

 

But I get what you are trying to say and In my country the Catholics have this lovely saying - It's more blissful to give than to receive.

Oops! I'm sorry, I should have defined what I meant by Love, not a sentiment or an emotion, but an act of the will! I entirely agree with these verses! (What denomination are you? Where I'm from, most of the denominations are Sola Fide.) I only meant that, though service follows love, service does not necessary equal love. Someone can perform actions without really loving. That's all I meant. Sorry for making that more complicated than it needed to be! 

 

[ProDeo]

31 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Oops! I'm sorry, I should have defined what I meant by Love, not a sentiment or an emotion, but an act of the will! I entirely agree with these verses! (What denomination are you? Where I'm from, most of the denominations are Sola Fide.) I only meant that, though service follows love, service does not necessary equal love. Someone can perform actions without really loving. That's all I meant. Sorry for making that more complicated than it needed to be! 

 

"Love means never having to say you're sorry."
-- Ali MacGraw to Ryan O'Neal in Love Story (1970)
 

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by ProDeo

[MaryJehanne]

@ProDeo Ha ha! Thank you.  God bless! 

 

[MaryJehanne]

4 hours ago, person0 said:

Justice did not come from anywhere.  It exists because in a reality where intelligent beings exist, it is not possible for it to not exist.  Hence it is a self-existing eternal principle, and there are many others.  Things that exist do not necessitate an origin.  The question of 'where did Justice come from?' is equivalent to the question of 'where did God come from?'  I think we would both agree that God didn't come from anywhere, He has always existed.  If there was ever a moment when nothing existed, then nothing would always be.  Likewise, because there are things that do exist, it is not possible that there ever was or ever will be a moment when nothing exists.

How come it's not possible for justice not to exist when intelligent beings do? 

I would agree that "where did Justice come from" equals "where did God come from," because I believe Justice finds it source in God. From what you've said, though, you don't believe that, so why is Justice necessary if it's not found only through God?

If there was a moment when nothing existed, yet God existed, then something could certainly come into being! Things that do exist, but are not existence in itself, must be held in existence by whatever is the source of existence. I don’t believe in just a mighty being as eternal. I'd still say that's ridiculous: who made him? I profess that God is only eternal because He is existence. He is simply He Who Is. If he were not, He would not be God.

 

4 hours ago, person0 said:

We don't know exactly what it is, but we know thought is enabled by intelligence, and intelligence is an actual thing that exists.  LDS scriptures state, " Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."  Magnetic force is not matter, it is something that is enabled when mater is organized in a particular way.  Similarly thought does not have to be matter, even if it is enabled by something that is matter, or otherwise a physical substance.  A principle is a fundamental truth.

A magnetic field, though, isn't an abstract concept. It consists of charges, of particles. That's matter! I'm asking about the supernatural.

What made a principle a fundamental truth? Why does it have to be a fundamental truth?

 

4 hours ago, person0 said:

I do not think that it is actually possible to conceive of a state of complete nothingness.  Anyone who tries will always eventually end up imagining complete white or complete black, but that is still something.  I agree that it is possible to suggest it out loud, or in text, but I do not believe it can actually be logically accomplished in the mind.  Regardless, it is somewhat irrelevant because, where you believe I am making an assumption, technically, I am not.  The reason I can say that I am not making an assumption is because LDS scripture actually specifically says, that there are things (such as intelligence) that cannot be created.  Similarly, our scriptures tell us that, "The elements are eternal".  So to our paradigm, God has already told us that He cannot create matter from nothing, which just so happens to also match up to the fact that we can't logically imagine how it could be accomplished.

If you're imagining something, though, and giving it a picture, you're operating within the natural. If we're considering nothingness, this begins to touch on the supernatural, which we cannot picture, since picturing something is inherently corporeal. Using our preternatural faculties, without using the senses, we can conceive of nothingness.

Ah! I see. I'd still say that's an assumption, but I understand that's your scripture, so to believe it you have to maintain that assumption!

 

4 hours ago, person0 said:

I agree with this entirely.  In fact, an oft quoted passage in the Book of Mormon indicates that there are, "both things to act and things to be acted upon."  From what I understand of your position, it appears that you would trace everything in existence back to what I might suggest is a 'spiritual equivalent of the Big Bang', where there was technically once a moment when nothing existed except for God, and then He began to create.  Clearly, however, I do not believe that such a moment ever existed.

Yes, I do believe there was a moment when nothing existed but God, although spiritual Big Bang wouldn't be quite the term for my belief! God is continually creating to keep things in existence, and each time a child is conceived, a new soul is made. 

 

4 hours ago, person0 said:

The proof was in the example of the children, the parent, and the ice-cream.  The statements were only preparatory to set the stage for what the example would show.

Matthew 20:9-16 is completely just; both parties completely fulfilled their end of the deal.  Each participant received exactly what they deserved per terms of the agreement.

Matthew 18:23-27 is incomplete.  The mercy in the parable was conditional.  The servant did not comply with the responsibility to forgive as he was forgiven, ultimately he was 'delivered to the tormentors' until he paid all.  It emphasizes one aspect of our responsibility as Christians, forgiveness.  When we accept Christ we also agree to the 'terms and conditions' of His salvation.  It is a free gift in the sense that we could not ever earn it for ourselves, but it is not forced on us to the extent that we can never reject it or lose it through wickedness.  It is also important to note that during mortality mankind is not bound by justice the way that God is bound by justice.  In my previous example with the ice cream, most parents would probably just give the child the ice cream in kindness and mercy.  The parent can do as they see fit with their stuff with no repercussions, because the parent is not expected to be perfect.  It still is technically unjust to the child who fulfilled his obligation in exchange for the reward.  Likewise, if the parable from Matthew 18 indicated that a different servant had actually paid his debt to the master, then the master's action to forgive the servant's debt would be unjust to the servant who paid because he did not fulfill the law in regards to nonpaying servants, and he did not treat all servants equally.  The point of the parable is that with God as the master, every single person ever born is in the position of the massively indebted servant.  While we are expected to be merciful, God is required to enact justice.

Yes, that makes sense you'd use them as preparatory statements, I just couldn't grasp them and use them as support for your idea, because the last statement doesn't follow the first two!

Justice and Mercy are intertwined in God. In examples of God's Mercy, you will find justice, and vice versa. His mercy is just because mercy belongs to Him. In the first Matthew quotation, He did what he wished with what he pleases. For Mercy, it is His to give out.

It's incomplete as far as reading the whole parable; it's not incomplete as far as the action of mercy is concerned. It is just as within His right to withdraw His gifts as it is to grant them! This doesn't nullify His ability to give mercy, simply because He has the power to take it away. I never said Mercy would be forced! I've emphasized that it is within cooperation with our free will.

If the child is sorry, that is not unjust. If the child is not sorry, however, it is, and will probably damage the child later on. If we are sorry for our sins (which per the law, should ban us from heaven), God forgives us of His own power. If we are not, in justice we go to Hell.

I think we're operating under different definitions of injustice! "Injustice (Lat. in, privative, and jus, right), in the large sense, is a contradiction in any way of the virtue of justice. Here, however, it is taken to mean the violation of another's strict right against his reasonable will, and the value of the word right is determined to be the moral power of having or doing or exacting something in support or furtherance of one's own advantage."

No, that parable is centered on God's mercy. He is not required to treat everyone the same, as Matthew 20:9-16 demonstrated. He did not treat the workers equally. Some did more work, and more difficult work, and some did less, easier work, and receive more proportionally than the first ones did. If the King were required to forgive all his servants their debts, there was no need for the servant to be so worried. He'd know the King would have to forgive him.

 

4 hours ago, person0 said:

I disagree with Thomas Aquinas.  His example is true, but his explanation of the example is incorrect. 'A man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred' first completely fulfills justice, and then after fulfilling it, gives more than justice requires and thus acts mercifully.  The debt was 100; by paying the first 100 the debt was paid and justice fulfilled, the second 100 was mercy.  The case is not the same with someone who pardons an offense against him; in the first example the person who owed the debt actually paid it, in the second example, the person who committed the offence did not pay the debt, but was only given mercy.  It is accurate that mercy is a gift, but justice was not fulfilled in the second example.  Once again, in mortality we are expected to forgive all and await the justice of the Lord.  However, God cannot forgive the man who sins and does not accept the payment of the punishment as offered by Christ, because God is bound by true justice.

The second example? Do you mean the Bible verses I quoted? Those weren't part of St. Thomas's statement... I picked out those. (Is that what you meant?)  

Whoever has dominion over Mercy, it is within His right to do whatever He pleases with it. This is just, if we're defining justice as fairness, momentarily. It is just for Him to distribute His Mercy as He sees fit; it is unjust to propose that He must limit what is His right. He can set up stipulations and make demands, and that is within His right. He owns it. He can also throw away His stipulations and demands, giving out His "property" to whomever He wishes. That's His right.

 

4 hours ago, person0 said:

The first sentence I agree with completely.  If all Christ did was pay our debt for sin, then justice would be fulfilled, and that's all.  However, Christ did what Thomas Aquinas had as his first example, He paid the price to fulfill justice and then went beyond that to extend mercy and enable us to become 'joint heirs' with Him.  The last question, to me, is based in a false premise, and it is the foundation premise of 'The Gospel of Inclusion' which teaches that God will ultimately forgive everyone for everything.  However, to answer your question anyway, our mortal application of mercy is flawed.  Where it appears that we are being merciful, it's quite possibly the contrary.  For example, if punishment X results in person A correcting a self destructive behavior, whereas the lack of punishment X would result in person A continuing the behavior, which is the more merciful thing?  I would argue, that in this example, the punishment is the more merciful thing.  However, because we do not posses the omniscient mind of God, we can't see all and in our mortal state will generally misapply justice and mercy.  This is another reason why we need Christ, His atonement not only makes up for our sins, it also changes our character, and alleviates our imperfections that are not necessarily sinful until we are ultimately made perfect as He is perfect.

Thank you for this very thought provoking conversation, it just keeps getting better and better!

No, I'd reject that premise! I said He was perfectly capable of forgiving whomever He pleases. Turning on an uncontrollable spout of forgiveness is in direct opposition to this statement. That means He can't distribute forgiveness as wishes, but is required to give it to everyone. That's not the case. He will not grant mercy to everyone. Only those He chooses. He extends His Mercy to everyone, but He does not choose to give His mercy to those who reject it.

 

In justice, even with Christ's sacrifice, we still should pay the price. God taking it on himself was Mercy, God accepting the Passion was Mercy. Just justice would want to see the punishment inflicted on the perpetrators, not anyone else.

[person0]

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

How come it's not possible for justice not to exist when intelligent beings do? 

The simplest way to explain it is that I believe justice is an innate characteristic that can be perceived to some extent by all intelligent forms of existence.  In an attempt to make this easier for us to come to common ground, I will put it in another way.  If I were to accept the possibility of creation from nothing, and that there was once a moment when nothing existed except for God, then I would also agree with you that justice only exists as part of God, and that God is it's source.  Even in normal 'every day' conversation I would completely agree with the concept that God is the source of justice.  However, in a nitty gritty conversation like this, I have pinpointed that He is not the creator/originator of justice, only because I believe that there is nothing in existence that has ever been created ex-nihilo.  Philosophically, to me justice exists independent of God, only because it is co-eternal with all things in existence.

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

so why is Justice necessary if it's not found only through God?

Justice is not necessary, it simply is, and can not be avoided.

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

What made a principle a fundamental truth? Why does it have to be a fundamental truth?

That was literally just the definition from the dictionary, when I looked up the word 'principle'.    However, I agreed with the definition.  It's not that is has to be a fundamental truth, it's that it simply is, and cannot be changed.

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

this begins to touch on the supernatural

To me there is no such thing as the supernatural.  At least not in the context I think you are talking about.  To me, everything God does is within the confines of natural law (i.e. creation ex-materia).  However, the natural laws we experience in mortality are not necessarily the same as eternal natural law.  For example, Christ physically ascended to heaven, you and I can't do that, or even levitate or fly without some sort of mechanical device.  To me Christs ability to travel like that is not supernatural, but is instead the result of His deeper knowledge and understanding of the nature and laws of physics to an extent that is not within the capability of mortal man.

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

I think we're operating under different definitions of injustice

My definition is, 'not getting exactly what one deserves'.

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

He is not required to treat everyone the same, as Matthew 20:9-16 demonstrated. He did not treat the workers equally.

I disagree. The Bible indicates that God is 'no respecter of persons', which is a huge foundation of my initial premise in the OP.  He will ultimately treat all of his children equally, it is our perception of what that equality means that may sometimes be limited in scope.  I believe that the workers in the parable were treated justly because they each made an agreement and they each received exactly what was agreed upon.  Equal doesn't mean everyone has the same experience, it means that theoretically, any two people who have the exact same experience, are treated exactly the same.  In terms of equality, in the parable, each person who worked started working at the same time as another person, received the same reward (this is separate in importance from the fact that groups that started at different times were also paid the same).

21 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

The second example?. . . a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred, does nothing against justice, buts acts liberally or mercifully. The case is the same with one who pardons an offence committed against him

Example 1.  Example 2.

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

It is just for Him to distribute His Mercy as He sees fit; it is unjust to propose that He must limit what is His right. He can set up stipulations and make demands, and that is within His right. He owns it. He can also throw away His stipulations and demands, giving out His "property" to whomever He wishes. That's His right. . . He was perfectly capable of forgiving whomever He pleases.

I agree, except that God has already set forth His plan and methods.  Any limitations are only those He has placed upon and/or agreed upon Himself.  Since He is unchanging, the stipulations will never change.  'God is a God of justice', this will never change, although He will continuously extend as much mercy as He possibly can, He will not change the stipulations; if He were to change them, then He has lied, and a God who lies is an imperfect God, which He is not, therefore He will not change and His mercy will only be extended insomuch as He maintains his identity as a God of justice.

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

In justice, even with Christ's sacrifice, we still should pay the price. God taking it on himself was Mercy, God accepting the Passion was Mercy. Just justice would want to see the punishment inflicted on the perpetrators, not anyone else.

I agree completely (and so does the Book of Mormon by the way), hence the ice-cream example.  Christ brings us back to God on His own infinite merit, only after we make our covenant with Him, and uphold our end of the covenant.  God accepts Christ and judges us based on Christ, not based on us.  To me, without Christ, there would be nothing that could bring us back, because justice could not be fulfilled/overpowered by mercy through any other means.

[SilentOne]

8 hours ago, ProDeo said:

"Love means never having to say you're sorry."
-- Ali MacGraw to Ryan O'Neal in Love Story (1970)

 

[ProDeo]

4 hours ago, SilentOne said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_means_never_having_to_say_you're_sorry

Plagiarism

Edited April 6, 2018 by ProDeo

[MaryJehanne]

On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:

The simplest way to explain it is that I believe justice is an innate characteristic that can be perceived to some extent by all intelligent forms of existence.  In an attempt to make this easier for us to come to common ground, I will put it in another way.  If I were to accept the possibility of creation from nothing, and that there was once a moment when nothing existed except for God, then I would also agree with you that justice only exists as part of God, and that God is it's source.  Even in normal 'every day' conversation I would completely agree with the concept that God is the source of justice.  However, in a nitty gritty conversation like this, I have pinpointed that He is not the creator/originator of justice, only because I believe that there is nothing in existence that has ever been created ex-nihilo.  Philosophically, to me justice exists independent of God, only because it is co-eternal with all things in existence.

I understand where you're coming from!  So the reason you don't believe justice finds its origin in God is because you've already determined it's impossible for God to be The Origin? As with the LDS scripture you quoted, maintaining the foundational bias is important to keep this ideology. I see how that works, it just makes it harder to understand when you're assuming something I'm not.

 

On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:

Justice is not necessary, it simply is, and can not be avoided.

Pardon my saying so, but it would seem if something is and cannot be avoided, that's the definition of necessary. In the LDS theology, then, that must be where my God is, not in Heavenly Father. Does that make my perspective easier to understand? It seems we've being discussing two different gods, which is the source of a lot of the disconnect, as I think we already mentioned!

I would say that justice manifests itself in human reason, since God oriented us for that, but does not exist because human reason exists. It's like we're TV monitors for the actual "machine" that is justice (probably a poor analogy, but it'll have to do! ).

 

On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:

That was literally just the definition from the dictionary, when I looked up the word 'principle'.    However, I agreed with the definition.  It's not that is has to be a fundamental truth, it's that it simply is, and cannot be changed.

I'm not trying to split hairs on definitions.  I wasn't challenging whether a principle is a fundamental truth; I'm asking a question about existence. I'm asking what makes a principle a principle? Why is a fundamental truth a fundamental truth? Nothing that is not existence exists "just because," otherwise there's no reason for something instead of nothing, which means there should be nothing.

 

On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:

To me there is no such thing as the supernatural.  At least not in the context I think you are talking about.  To me, everything God does is within the confines of natural law (i.e. creation ex-materia).  However, the natural laws we experience in mortality are not necessarily the same as eternal natural law.  For example, Christ physically ascended to heaven, you and I can't do that, or even levitate or fly without some sort of mechanical device.  To me Christs ability to travel like that is not supernatural, but is instead the result of His deeper knowledge and understanding of the nature and laws of physics to an extent that is not within the capability of mortal man.

Again, pardon my saying so, but there's only one sort of supernatural... it means something above (super) what is natural!

I think that's another assumption... I don't think that knowledge and understanding can make what's impossible possible. There's is nothing on this planet that can do something of its own volition beyond its nature. Every animal that flies needs apparatuses to do so, and they either have them and can fly, or they don't and they can't. If something is occurring that's beyond what is natural, it must be supernatural (or preternatural, in the case beings such as demons).

 

On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:

My definition is, 'not getting exactly what one deserves'.

Mine would be "a violation of another's strict right against his reasonable will," i.e. the right to live, the right to Liberty, and on a higher level, the right to pursue love of God. Injustice, in my current understanding, must always be a detriment blocking what is good.

 

On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:

I disagree. The Bible indicates that God is 'no respecter of persons', which is a huge foundation of my initial premise in the OP.  He will ultimately treat all of his children equally, it is our perception of what that equality means that may sometimes be limited in scope.  I believe that the workers in the parable were treated justly because they each made an agreement and they each received exactly what was agreed upon.  Equal doesn't mean everyone has the same experience, it means that theoretically, any two people who have the exact same experience, are treated exactly the same.  In terms of equality, in the parable, each person who worked started working at the same time as another person, received the same reward (this is separate in importance from the fact that groups that started at different times were also paid the same).

In my perspective, He won't love a person more, but He does have individual missions for people that won't be equal. (And of course, He'll grant some people more grace than others if they ask for it versus not, but I'm assuming you're including that in experience?) If I was under the exact same conditions as St. Faustina (which obviously wouldn't happen, because that wasn't His will!), would He have made me His Secretary of Divine Mercy? Probably not. She has a certain relationship with Him that I will never have, simply because she is she as He made her. And I have a relationship with Him no one else will have, because I am me as He made me.

 

On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:

Example 1.  Example 2.

Ah. I'd see. I'd answer with a variation on what I've probably been saying, but mercy is not mercy if it is required. The second instance is MORE merciful than the first. If justice were required for mercy to be enacted, there would be no true mercy.

 

On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:

I agree, except that God has already set forth His plan and methods.  Any limitations are only those He has placed upon and/or agreed upon Himself.  Since He is unchanging, the stipulations will never change.  'God is a God of justice', this will never change, although He will continuously extend as much mercy as He possibly can, He will not change the stipulations; if He were to change them, then He has lied, and a God who lies is an imperfect God, which He is not, therefore He will not change and His mercy will only be extended insomuch as He maintains his identity as a God of justice.

I'm confused by this... didn't you say He had to be just and merciful as part of His nature? How are these limitations He's imposed on Himself? If He could never change, how was he able to become a God of mercy and justice in the first place? That seems to be a change

I do think there's another disconnect in our approach to this to do with our different definitions of God. You're saying God is a God of Mercy, that mercy is a part of Him, but I am holding that my God is Mercy. His Mercy is limitless because it is Him. To limit His Mercy would be to limit Him, which would make him at best God with a lowercase "g", which is why I'm having trouble with much of what you're saying. It's probably, again, just that I'm thinking of a different sort of Being, one that's not human in His Divine Nature.

 

On April 5, 2018 at 10:55 PM, person0 said:

I agree completely (and so does the Book of Mormon by the way), hence the ice-cream example.  Christ brings us back to God on His own infinite merit, only after we make our covenant with Him, and uphold our end of the covenant.  God accepts Christ and judges us based on Christ, not based on us.  To me, without Christ, there would be nothing that could bring us back, because justice could not be fulfilled/overpowered by mercy through any other means.

Okay.  Christ is able to be merciful when the Father is not? Or are you just saying Christ's mercy is still coming from His (then) future Atonement?

 

[person0]

49 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

Pardon my saying so, but it would seem if something is and cannot be avoided, that's the definition of necessary.

Okay, if that is the definition of necessary, then in my belief, justice is necessary.  As far as different Gods, I disagree.  It's not as if I am speaking of Zeus and you are speaking of Apollo.  We are both speaking of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, although we have different understandings of His characteristics and attributes.

55 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

I would say that justice manifests itself in human reason, since God oriented us for that, but does not exist because human reason exists.

I agree with this statement, and it is actually almost exactly my point this whole time.  I believe that true justice manifests itself in God's reason.  I also would say that justice manifests itself in every being that has the capability to reason.  It's as simple as that.  Even if God were once the lone form of existence in the universe, justice would have existed as part of him at that moment.  Therefore no matter how far back you go, it was already at least a part of Him.

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

I'm asking a question about existence. I'm asking what makes a principle a principle? Why is a fundamental truth a fundamental truth?

Now that I better understand your question, I would say that a fundamental truth is something that manifests itself in every being that has the capability to reason, God inclusive.

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

If something is occurring that's beyond what is natural, it must be supernatural

Well, then to your level of specificity, I suppose it would be more correct to simply say that I do not believe there is any such thing as the supernatural.  What one might perceive as being supernatural, is actually just a lack or limitation of knowledge and power.  However, I realize that to you, God's power itself would probably be considered supernatural.  To me it wouldn't; God's power is that He commands and anything He commands obeys, which is a naturally occurring event.

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

Mine would be "a violation of another's strict right against his reasonable will," i.e. the right to live, the right to Liberty, and on a higher level, the right to pursue love of God. Injustice, in my current understanding, must always be a detriment blocking what is good.

Okay, I can work with that.  If injustice is a detriment blocking what is good. . . Preventing the eternal consequences of sin is a detriment blocking what is good.  Christ took upon himself the consequences of sin, therefore mercy prevails, and does so without an injustice occurring.

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

He won't love a person more, but He does have individual missions for people that won't be equal. . .And I have a relationship with Him no one else will have, because I am me as He made me.

I  agree.  This is actually kind of the point.  No two people will ever actually have the exact same experience.  However, as an exercise in logic, if two people were to literally have the exact same experience, they would merit the exact same outcome.

1 hour ago, MaryJehanne said:

mercy is not mercy if it is required. . . If justice were required for mercy to be enacted, there would be no true mercy.

I agree that mercy is not required; it is extended because of who God is, it is part of His nature.  Setting aside for a moment the other aspects of our discussion - Mercy is an obligation in the sense that God has indicated that He is merciful and also unchanging.  He is obligated to Himself.  Likewise, God is obligated to Himself to be just.  Now, mortal justice is not true justice, it is incomplete and imperfect just as the whole of the mortal experience is imperfect.  In mortality, our application of justice may enable a vile criminal to be pardoned, even if he admits his crime and is convicted.  Even so, God's judgement will require the punishment for sin, regardless.  Christ, somehow, was able to pay the price for sin.  Preventing us from each having to experience the punishment for sin is mercy already.  Mercy was the answer to justice; the mercy of God to sacrifice His Son, and the mercy of Christ to sacrifice himself; all for us.  However, these acts of mercy are what fulfilled the demands of justice, so that justice no longer has those demands.  If justice still expected us to suffer the punishment for our own sins, and yet God ignored that, then He is not a 'God of justice' as the Bible clearly indicates Him to be.  Instead, justice is fulfilled and no longer requires our individual punishment, because the atonement of Christ was able to satisfy the demands of justice.

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

I'm confused by this... didn't you say He had to be just and merciful as part of His nature? How are these limitations He's imposed on Himself? If He could never change, how was he able to become a God of mercy and justice in the first place? That seems to be a change

He never changed, so I'm not sure what you meant by this.  I think what I said in the previous paragraph addresses this anyway.

2 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

I do think there's another disconnect in our approach to this to do with our different definitions of God. You're saying God is a God of Mercy, that mercy is a part of Him, but I am holding that my God is Mercy. His Mercy is limitless because it is Him. To limit His Mercy would be to limit Him, which would make him at best God with a lowercase "g", which is why I'm having trouble with much of what you're saying. It's probably, again, just that I'm thinking of a different sort of Being, one that's not human in His Divine Nature.

I may need you to explain this a little bit better, forgive me for my confusion.  Even if we agree that God is Mercy in the way you have presented.  Do you not then also believe that God is Justice, and that his Justice is limitless because it is Him, and that to limit His justice is would be to limit Him?

If I understand your perspective correctly, you believe that God can extend as much mercy as He wishes to extend, and His mercy automatically overcomes His justice, because it is His, and He can do with it as He chooses.  If this is correct, then it goes back to my OP.  I do not have a problem with the logical concept of this belief.  My own father, who is Muslim, also believes this about God.  What I find problematic with it is that if this is the case, and God can give out mercy at his unlimited discretion, and He is not beholden to a sense of justice in any way, then there is absolutely no logical reason why He should not grant unlimited mercy to every creation, both righteous and wicked, to protect them all from hell, regardless of their choices.  Even if He is honoring their wish to be separated from Himself, He could do so without them suffering in any way.  Likewise, there would be no benefit to, nor need for, the atonement of Christ, because God's mercy alone would be sufficient.

In short, if God's mercy is not 'limited' (for lack of a better word) in some form or fashion, then I see no reason to not automatically guarantee eventual salvation for everyone.  If His mercy is not 'limited' in some way, and yet He limits salvation, then that would make him a 'respecter of persons' because all have sinned, and all are deserving of hell.  Therefore, He would simply be picking and choosing who is protected from hell, and who isn't, and who receives glory, and who doesn't, all merely at His own personal whim.  If that is the case, then how could anyone ever place their trust in such a being?

3 hours ago, MaryJehanne said:

Christ is able to be merciful when the Father is not?  . . . Christ's mercy is still coming from His (then) future Atonement?

Christ, through His atonement, is the application and extension of the Father's mercy.  Yes, in a sense, the atonement of Christ is both infinitely retroactive and also proactive.

[MaryJehanne]

On April 9, 2018 at 8:55 PM, person0 said:

Okay, if that is the definition of necessary, then in my belief, justice is necessary.  As far as different Gods, I disagree.  It's not as if I am speaking of Zeus and you are speaking of Apollo.  We are both speaking of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, although we have different understandings of His characteristics and attributes.

Okay! 

I understand your disagreement, but I'd propose that it's more than talking about different personalities, such as in the example of Zeus and Apollo. Zeus and Apollo are of the same nature. It's clear even just from our discussion that we're talking about very different sorts of beings.

The God you've been describing is contingent (not existence itself), and is essentially of the same nature as man.

The God I've been describing is non-contingent (existence itself), is an entirely different being than man and not made of matter in His Divine nature, composed of no parts.

If these definitions really are true, they're mutually exclusive. The name we're discussing is either truthfully attached to one or the other; it can't truly be both at once. Once the essence of a being has been redefined, it's no longer that being. For instance, if I you had a friend named Sarah, and I claimed to know Sarah too, but described, for instance, a plant, even though I'd used Sarah's name, I wouldn't really be talking about her.

(By saying they're different gods, of course I'm not proposing that there are actually two who are existing at the same time; I'm only saying that one is an entirely different concept than the other!)

 

On April 9, 2018 at 8:55 PM, person0 said:

I agree with this statement, and it is actually almost exactly my point this whole time.  I believe that true justice manifests itself in God's reason.  I also would say that justice manifests itself in every being that has the capability to reason.  It's as simple as that.  Even if God were once the lone form of existence in the universe, justice would have existed as part of him at that moment.  Therefore no matter how far back you go, it was already at least a part of Him.

I think that again takes us to our fundamental divergence in our concepts of God! I believe justice manifests in human reason, and you believe that God has the same nature, and so naturally he must have a human reason as well, where justice manifests. I differ in that I am defining the origin of justice, not stopping at its manifestation inside a created being. God is the origin of Justice, and so it does not merely manifest within Him, but is a part of Him.

 

On April 9, 2018 at 8:55 PM, person0 said:

Now that I better understand your question, I would say that a fundamental truth is something that manifests itself in every being that has the capability to reason, God inclusive.

Thank you!  That's still a definition, though! I'm looking for more of answer to the "why" part, not just the identity of something. For instance, if you asked me why human beings experience hope, something I might say is that it's because we have both a physical and spiritual nature, the spiritual nature being able to comprehend non-physical realities such as hope via reason and intellect. That's more of what I'm pressing for when I ask "why are there fundamental truths"!

 

On April 9, 2018 at 8:55 PM, person0 said:

Well, then to your level of specificity, I suppose it would be more correct to simply say that I do not believe there is any such thing as the supernatural.  What one might perceive as being supernatural, is actually just a lack or limitation of knowledge and power.  However, I realize that to you, God's power itself would probably be considered supernatural.  To me it wouldn't; God's power is that He commands and anything He commands obeys, which is a naturally occurring event.

I see!  On that point, I might just press that I would perceive commanding nature to do something other than what it is able to do naturally is, inherently, unnatural. What would you say to someone who asked what natural forces would be leveraged to walk through walls? To know what is in someone's mind? To forgive sin?

Even moving molecules, like you mentioned before, would require a supernatural movement, since molecules don't just rearrange themselves into entirely different objects in the natural world.

Yes, to me God is supernatural, and He can work within nature or outside of it, not being dependent on nature, His creation, which is entirely subject to Him in every way.

 

On April 9, 2018 at 8:55 PM, person0 said:

Okay, I can work with that.  If injustice is a detriment blocking what is good. . . Preventing the eternal consequences of sin is a detriment blocking what is good.  Christ took upon himself the consequences of sin, therefore mercy prevails, and does so without an injustice occurring.

Yes, that's true! I never said mercy would cause injustice. Unless I've messed up somewhere, my stance was that mercy and justice aren't opposites, so mercy can be enacted without causing injustice, etc. There are also might be multiple definitions of justice I've been using at once, I believe, which is confusing. There's one definition of justice which is just-deserts (he hit me so I hit him) and there's another justice that is what is owed to something in its nature (it is just for God to be Merciful, since that is His right).

I've also mixed up guilt and debt, including them in one package. The debt always must be paid, through penance, indulgences, other people, etc. The guilt, to the extent of my knowledge, can be removed. Thus Adam and Eve were forgiven their guilt and were not sent to Hell, but had to wait for the debt until Paradise had been opened. 

I don't know if that was really helpful, but this is talking about God's Nature, something that I don't fully understand! I apologize if I've erred at all in what I've said on that account!

 

On April 9, 2018 at 8:55 PM, person0 said:

I  agree.  This is actually kind of the point.  No two people will ever actually have the exact same experience.  However, as an exercise in logic, if two people were to literally have the exact same experience, they would merit the exact same outcome.

I think the point I was probably trying to make is that we don't really merit anything, and that everything we gain is given to us by God. I wouldn't say by the same experience (exterior encounters) they'd gain the same outcome, but if you combine it with the same decisions (interior realities), then probably! A person is a very complex thing though, so I wouldn't feel confident in that answer unless they were exactly the same in every way. Which would mean they are the same person! 

 

On April 9, 2018 at 8:55 PM, person0 said:

I agree that mercy is not required; it is extended because of who God is, it is part of His nature.  Setting aside for a moment the other aspects of our discussion - Mercy is an obligation in the sense that God has indicated that He is merciful and also unchanging.  He is obligated to Himself.  Likewise, God is obligated to Himself to be just. 

Now, mortal justice is not true justice, it is incomplete and imperfect just as the whole of the mortal experience is imperfect.  In mortality, our application of justice may enable a vile criminal to be pardoned, even if he admits his crime and is convicted. 

Even so, God's judgement will require the punishment for sin, regardless.  Christ, somehow, was able to pay the price for sin.  Preventing us from each having to experience the punishment for sin is mercy already.  Mercy was the answer to justice; the mercy of God to sacrifice His Son, and the mercy of Christ to sacrifice himself; all for us.  However, these acts of mercy are what fulfilled the demands of justice, so that justice no longer has those demands.  If justice still expected us to suffer the punishment for our own sins, and yet God ignored that, then He is not a 'God of justice' as the Bible clearly indicates Him to be.  Instead, justice is fulfilled and no longer requires our individual punishment, because the atonement of Christ was able to satisfy the demands of justice.

Although not completely to the point, I'd like to clear up my concept of God's being "unchanging"! I do believe He is unchanging in His nature, and I do believe if He promises something, He will keep that promise, by I do not believe that there is no "superficial" change! For instance, He can change his decisions (such as saying He'd destroy Nineveh, and then deciding not to).

I can't say that I agree that that version of justice is good. A "vile criminal" may have done something terrible, but he's still a human being. The "justice" on this earth is not the ultimate justice; only God can give that. Mercy is much more important. Punishment exists in our legal system to train individuals not to repeat a bad behavior and to dissuade the general populace from following that same path. It's not about exacting revenge. If the people facilitating the punishment are attempting to inflict pain for retribution, that's hateful and has become sinful. For instance, I'd say capital punishment is wrong where it can be avoided, even if the perpetrator committed murder. Eye-for-an-eye justice would demand that that criminal be executed, so as to match his crimes. But that's not the way of mercy. Unless the criminal can't be contained and is dangerous to others, the proper action is to contain him, giving him the natural life God has given him in the hopes that the soul will choose to return to God's love.

The interactions of God's justice and mercy are highly conceptual and far above my study so far (I'm wading in too deep here!), but I do know that in Catholicism, His Mercy is His greatest attribute. How does justice play in there? I could speculate, but I'm afraid of falling into too many errors and I don't want to simply be confusing. In what He did during the Redemption, justice clearly plays a role, but as to what He could have done, I can't say for sure!

 

On April 9, 2018 at 8:55 PM, person0 said:

He never changed, so I'm not sure what you meant by this.  I think what I said in the previous paragraph addresses this anyway.

It may just have been because of your word choice! Since you said he'd choose mercy and justice, that intimates that there was a point in time where he decided to declare himself merciful and just, which would mean that there was a time (the time before) where he was not merciful and just. And if He was at one point not intrinsically merciful and just, and then at another point was intrinsically merciful and just, he would have changed. That's all I was asking about!

 

On April 9, 2018 at 8:55 PM, person0 said:

I may need you to explain this a little bit better, forgive me for my confusion.  Even if we agree that God is Mercy in the way you have presented.  Do you not then also believe that God is Justice, and that his Justice is limitless because it is Him, and that to limit His justice is would be to limit Him?

If I understand your perspective correctly, you believe that God can extend as much mercy as He wishes to extend, and His mercy automatically overcomes His justice, because it is His, and He can do with it as He chooses.  If this is correct, then it goes back to my OP.  I do not have a problem with the logical concept of this belief.  My own father, who is Muslim, also believes this about God.  What I find problematic with it is that if this is the case, and God can give out mercy at his unlimited discretion, and He is not beholden to a sense of justice in any way, then there is absolutely no logical reason why He should not grant unlimited mercy to every creation, both righteous and wicked, to protect them all from hell, regardless of their choices.  Even if He is honoring their wish to be separated from Himself, He could do so without them suffering in any way.  Likewise, there would be no benefit to, nor need for, the atonement of Christ, because God's mercy alone would be sufficient.

In short, if God's mercy is not 'limited' (for lack of a better word) in some form or fashion, then I see no reason to not automatically guarantee eventual salvation for everyone.  If His mercy is not 'limited' in some way, and yet He limits salvation, then that would make him a 'respecter of persons' because all have sinned, and all are deserving of hell.  Therefore, He would simply be picking and choosing who is protected from hell, and who isn't, and who receives glory, and who doesn't, all merely at His own personal whim.  If that is the case, then how could anyone ever place their trust in such a being?

I'm not very well versed in this area, so excuse me if I make mistakes! I'd cautiously say that God is mercy and mercy is His greatest attribute. Although justice is part of Him as well and is always involved, as far as I know, Mercy is greater. 

I don't know if there's an issue in what I've said about mercy and justice, but insofar as there being no logical reason why He should not grant unlimited mercy, I'd say there is one: His Will. He has made His mercy contingent on repentance and love. He doesn't want to indiscriminately dispense mercy. (As a side note, to be separated from God is to be in pain! That's how He's made it. We're are ordered towards Love, and to reject Him is to fall into agony. I know of the tradition in Catholicism, that the "flames" of Hell are a mercy to distract from the true pain of knowing you'd divorced yourself from ever being with God.)

He has set up the way to gain mercy: to repent and to love Him. That's His choice, which is the opposite of "respecting" persons. The main reason to trust Him is because of His infallible, inexhaustible love. He's not some strange chaotic being that is sometimes hateful, sometimes loving. He is always loving and never hateful. The way to forgiven is to trust Him, the way to not be is to not trust Him. That's not very unpredictable. And since He's so merciful, really the scales are weighted in your favor. He desires that everyone chooses to come to Him and will help you along the way!

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

The God you've been describing is contingent (not existence itself), and is essentially of the same nature as man.

The God I've been describing is non-contingent (existence itself), is an entirely different being than man and not made of matter in His Divine nature, composed of no parts.

From an LDS viewpoint -- frankly, from most non-Catholic viewpoints -- this is neo-Platonic hairsplitting nonsense. There is nothing Biblical about such doctrines. To us, it's meaningless babble, much like talking about whether Star Wars' hyperdrive is superior to Star Trek's warp drive. It's angels dancing on the head of a pin times a bazillion.

[MaryJehanne]

33 minutes ago, Vort said:

From an LDS viewpoint -- frankly, from most non-Catholic viewpoints -- this is neo-Platonic hairsplitting nonsense. There is nothing Biblical about such doctrines. To us, it's meaningless babble, much like talking about whether Star Wars' hyperdrive is superior to Star Trek's warp drive. It's angels dancing on the head of a pin times a bazillion.

Hello, Vort.  I’m sorry if I’ve aggravated you in some way. I understand if you disagree with my beliefs — I expect that —but to belittle them using pejorative vocabulary and mocking examples isn’t very respectful or kind. 

I apologize if you don’t see value in my perspective, but far from “hairsplitting”, the idea I shared is speaking about the intrinsic nature of God. Whether God is Ultimate or simply very powerful is a signifcant distinction indeed. Many religions would agree. Judaism doesn’t declare God to be man, nor do Muslims or other Christian communities such as Protestants or Eastern Orthodox. I don’t say that to be offensive, but merely to reply to your point. 

As to it being Biblical, the Bible does talk about God having existed forever and speaks of God as being of a separate nature and status from humans, such as in Job 33:12. It does not talk about God as having the status of a created being (angel/human/animal), nor that He is instrinsically man, the two distinctions between our concepts that I cited. (I may also add that Catholics hold our Bible as part of our Tradition, not the only component)

Again, I don’t mean to be offensive, only to adequately reply to your accusation.

 

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, MaryJehanne said:

I’m sorry if I’ve aggravated you in some way.

Not at all. And I was not trying to mock or belittle. I thought you might be interested in the reaction from a non-Catholic toward the viewpoint you expressed. It was not a personal slam, nor intended as an anti-Catholic slight. I honestly did not mean to offend, just provide information. Perhaps I ham-fisted it; if so, I apologize.

On rereading my response, I can definitely see why it would be taken as offensive. My apologies.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Vort

[MaryJehanne]

On May 12, 2018 at 2:06 AM, Vort said:

Not at all. And I was not trying to mock or belittle. I thought you might be interested in the reaction from a non-Catholic toward the viewpoint you expressed. It was not a personal slam, nor intended as an anti-Catholic slight. I honestly did not mean to offend, just provide information. Perhaps I ham-fisted it; if so, I apologize.

On rereading my response, I can definitely see why it would be taken as offensive. My apologies.

Ah, I see! Thank you very much, Vort.  God bless!

[person0]

On 5/12/2018 at 1:14 AM, MaryJehanne said:

If these definitions really are true, they're mutually exclusive. The name we're discussing is either truthfully attached to one or the other; it can't truly be both at once. Once the essence of a being has been redefined, it's no longer that being. For instance, if I you had a friend named Sarah, and I claimed to know Sarah too, but described, for instance, a plant, even though I'd used Sarah's name, I wouldn't really be talking about her.

(By saying they're different gods, of course I'm not proposing that there are actually two who are existing at the same time; I'm only saying that one is an entirely different concept than the other!)

I understand your point, however, as a result, in this particular area of discussion, we have reached the point where our analysis moves strictly to the spiritual.  The only way to know which attributes accurately define God would be in an appeal to Him for confirmation through His Holy Spirit.  For the record, I think that stating that 'God is existence itself' in the way that you have, is an incomprehensible construct.  Clearly, we will continue to disagree on the nature of God as a being.

On 5/12/2018 at 1:14 AM, MaryJehanne said:

I differ in that I am defining the origin of justice, not stopping at its manifestation inside a created being. God is the origin of Justice, and so it does not merely manifest within Him, but is a part of Him.

Similar to what you have indicated, I think we are saying the same thing, only with different perspectives about the nature of God, not about the origin of justice.  If we agreed about the nature of God, it is apparent that we would agree about the nature/origin of Justice.

On 5/12/2018 at 1:14 AM, MaryJehanne said:

I'm looking for more of answer to the "why" part, not just the identity of something. For instance, if you asked me why human beings experience hope, something I might say is that it's because we have both a physical and spiritual nature, the spiritual nature being able to comprehend non-physical realities such as hope via reason and intellect.

Then at that point I feel like the question, 'why are there fundamental truths' is no different than asking, 'why does God exist?'  Is there really an answer for that?  I think not.  Except to say that He exists because He always has, and they exist because they always have, which is what I've been saying.  Do you have a different answer to the question, 'why does God exist?' that would be applicable?

On 5/12/2018 at 1:14 AM, MaryJehanne said:

I might just press that I would perceive commanding nature to do something other than what it is able to do naturally is, inherently, unnatural.
. . . Even moving molecules, like you mentioned before, would require a supernatural movement, since molecules don't just rearrange themselves into entirely different objects in the natural world.

If it were something that wasn't within its nature to be able to do, it still wouldn't be able to do it, regardless of whether or not God commanded it.  We are using two different definitions of supernatural.  Your definition being anything that is not an naturally occurring event that is observable by mankind, mine being something that is outside the spectrum of reality.  Ultimately it doesn't really matter, I use the word supernatural in my daily life as would any other person, however, I was simply trying to distinguish my understanding of God's workings.  If He wants a table to become a chair, He doesn't give the table special powers and force it to become a chair; He commands the table, and the table obeys Him and turns into a chair.  The table is not require to obey your and my commands, so it appears to be an unnatural event, however, it is not really an event outside of nature, but instead, and event outside of our experience with nature.  Once again, just a difference in perspective and terminology.

On 5/12/2018 at 1:14 AM, MaryJehanne said:

. . . my stance was that mercy and justice aren't opposites, so mercy can be enacted without causing injustice, etc.

I think we agree here for the most part, but are simply not understanding one another.  I agree that mercy can be enacted without causing an injustice, but that does not mean that they are not opposites to an extent.  As in the ice cream example, the one child received justice, because they did not receive any ice-cream, the other child also received justice, because they complied with the rule to get their homework done on time and also received ice cream.  The child who received the ice-cream shared it with the child who did not receive it.  Hence, a 3rd party enabled justice to be fulfilled by the parent who made the rule, and yet mercy to be extended.  Hence, we receive justice from the Father, and Mercy from the Son and through His atonement.  Anyway, perhaps we will not agree here, that is fine.

Sorry it took me so long to respond, and thanks again for this delightful discussion!

[MaryJehanne]

Hello, Person0!

On July 6, 2018 at 10:32 AM, person0 said:

I understand your point, however, as a result, in this particular area of discussion, we have reached the point where our analysis moves strictly to the spiritual.  The only way to know which attributes accurately define God would be in an appeal to Him for confirmation through His Holy Spirit.  For the record, I think that stating that 'God is existence itself' in the way that you have, is an incomprehensible construct.  Clearly, we will continue to disagree on the nature of God as a being.

I would disagree with that second statement! The Catholic Church teaches that there are two ways to know God's attributes with certainty, the first being natural reason and the second being His divine revelation, for those things we cannot know through natural reason alone. God is generous and does not hide Himself from man, so He has freely revealed Himself throughout the natural world and in His Word.

From the Catechism:

Quote

 

Created in God's image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of "converging and convincing arguments", which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These "ways" of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world's order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. (Rom 1:19-20; cf. Acts 14:15,17; 17:27-28; Wis 13:1-9.)

And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: "See, we are beautiful." Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change? (St. Augustine, Sermo 241, 2:PL 38,1134.)

The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the "seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material", can have its origin only in God.

The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God".

Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

"Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason." (Vatican Council I, Dei Filius 2:DS 3004; cf. 3026; Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum 6.) Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".

In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.  (Pius XII, Humani generis, 561:DS 3875.)

This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error". (Pius XII, Humani generis, 561:DS 3876; cf. Dei Filius 2:DS 3005; DV 6; St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I,1,1.)

 

I would say that of course it's incomprehensible... it is above and beyond our nature! You are arguing for a God that is of the same (progressed) nature as yourself, and so you would expect to be able to comprehend all that he is. I am, however, arguing for a God that is a nature so powerful, so grand, so ultimate, so far above myself, that I could not dream of fitting what He is inside my head. I can understand what the basics of "existence itself" means, but I won't be able to fully understand all that it is and implicates, because to do that would be to completely understand God Himself. 

 

On July 6, 2018 at 10:32 AM, person0 said:

Similar to what you have indicated, I think we are saying the same thing, only with different perspectives about the nature of God, not about the origin of justice.  If we agreed about the nature of God, it is apparent that we would agree about the nature/origin of Justice.

Yes, I think so! Like I said before, I would specific that you would place Justice as the controlling concept with its origin outside of God, and I would say that that higher controlling concept (in this case Justice) finds itself in God.

 

On July 6, 2018 at 10:32 AM, person0 said:

Then at that point I feel like the question, 'why are there fundamental truths' is no different than asking, 'why does God exist?'  Is there really an answer for that?  I think not.  Except to say that He exists because He always has, and they exist because they always have, which is what I've been saying.  Do you have a different answer to the question, 'why does God exist?' that would be applicable?

That would be more the answer I'm looking for! Why do fundamental truths exist? Because they find their existence in God Himself. They are a part of Him. So, yes, it would be nearly the same thing!

Why does God exist? That is similar to asking why existence exists! The answer is because there is something. In other words, there is existence. In other words, He Who Is. Without Him there would be nothing, not even the concept of nothing. There couldn't be so much as empty space. Why does God exist? Because He is existence; because He is, in philosophical terms, the necessary principle. He must exist.

 

On July 6, 2018 at 10:32 AM, person0 said:

If it were something that wasn't within its nature to be able to do, it still wouldn't be able to do it, regardless of whether or not God commanded it.  We are using two different definitions of supernatural.  Your definition being anything that is not an naturally occurring event that is observable by mankind, mine being something that is outside the spectrum of reality.  Ultimately it doesn't really matter, I use the word supernatural in my daily life as would any other person, however, I was simply trying to distinguish my understanding of God's workings.  If He wants a table to become a chair, He doesn't give the table special powers and force it to become a chair; He commands the table, and the table obeys Him and turns into a chair.  The table is not require to obey your and my commands, so it appears to be an unnatural event, however, it is not really an event outside of nature, but instead, and event outside of our experience with nature.  Once again, just a difference in perspective and terminology.

If it was within its nature to do, why does it only do it when God commands it in an extra-ordinary occurrence? If something is in its nature, it has the power to do it under ordinary circumstances. Under ordinary circumstances, bread stays bread. It only turns into the tissue of a human heart under circumstances that empirical science cannot explain. When something is natural, empirical science can explain it, because it knows the nature and the functioning and the ability of what is nature, what is physical. It can explain the molecular construction of bread and human tissue, it can demonstrate that the tissue of a body decomposes over time, it can show that a person is matter that takes up space. It cannot explain how bread has transformed into the tissue of a human heart, nor how a body can sit for hundreds of years and not decompose, nor how a person would be able to be simultaneously in two parts of the world. Any empirical scientist would say these things are not natural.

A table is not able to become a chair on its own. That is beyond its capabilities. It can't even become a table on its own. First its a tree, which has wood, which has the potential to become a table or a chair or numerous other things. But it never reaches that potential unless acted on by an outside force. Your example, however, is limited in that the real nature of the thing being discussed stays the same - a table is wood, and when turned into a chair, it is still wood. You are discussing something changing its accidental form, not the substantial form of, in this case, "woodness". An accidental form can be changed by natural methods (although the methods you are proposing would need to be administered by supernatural, or perhaps preternatural, being, since it involves no physical contact nor, I'm assuming, steps), but things to do with changing substantial form require supernatural methods. For instance, as I mentioned above, bread changing into the tissue of a human organ.

 

On July 6, 2018 at 10:32 AM, person0 said:

I think we agree here for the most part, but are simply not understanding one another.  I agree that mercy can be enacted without causing an injustice, but that does not mean that they are not opposites to an extent.  As in the ice cream example, the one child received justice, because they did not receive any ice-cream, the other child also received justice, because they complied with the rule to get their homework done on time and also received ice cream.  The child who received the ice-cream shared it with the child who did not receive it.  Hence, a 3rd party enabled justice to be fulfilled by the parent who made the rule, and yet mercy to be extended.  Hence, we receive justice from the Father, and Mercy from the Son and through His atonement.  Anyway, perhaps we will not agree here, that is fine.

I don't think I can really attempt to define the proper Catholic view without falling into error, because I'm just not advanced enough.  I will say that we receive Mercy from both the Father and the Son, because in Catholicism, both are the God. 

 

On July 6, 2018 at 10:32 AM, person0 said:

Sorry it took me so long to respond, and thanks again for this delightful discussion!

That's all right! You're welcome, and God bless!