God was once a man?!

[Traveler]

On ‎8‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 0:55 PM, prisonchaplain said:

@Traveler Throughout our lives we take responsibility for what we did not make:  wife, children, house, car, dog, etc. We can be held liable for what happens with them. Similarly, If God creates us with options throughout our lives, I'm not seeing that we have to have a pre-mortality contract before we take responsibility for what we do with what we're given. I understand why such a contract would seem to add to our sense of duty, but not that it is a necessity.

 

Let me help you with this discussion – having traveled this landscape.  One argument that would help your cause (at least as I understand it) is the doctrine of being born again.  Thus, we are created as fallen creatures by divine design but that to become a follower or disciple of Christ – we must be born again and take upon a new nature (including will).   Of course, this will not end a journey for understanding free will but I thought you would enjoy incorporating it into how you understand your position and present your views concerning agency or freewill.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

On 8/19/2017 at 1:55 PM, prisonchaplain said:

@Traveler Throughout our lives we take responsibility for what we did not make:  wife, children, house, car, dog, etc. We can be held liable for what happens with them. Similarly, If God creates us with options throughout our lives, I'm not seeing that we have to have a pre-mortality contract before we take responsibility for what we do with what we're given. I understand why such a contract would seem to add to our sense of duty, but not that it is a necessity.

This is reverse logic. You start of with declaring that we have responsibilities.  Then you use that to conclude that we have free will.  Not so.  It is because we have free will that the concept of responsibilities even has any validity.  This really has nothing to do with what causes us to have free will in the first place.

The first question really being asked is if we even have free will in the first place.  We both agree that we do.  But the how is where we have disagreement.

1) To Mormons, it is simple.  The essence of who we have always been was never created.  That intelligence is exactly what defines us and is the only thing that is truly ours.  This is the source of our ability to choose.

2) To evangelicals (some of whom do not believe in free will) the essence of free will is that God created it within us.  That is the end of it.  It is a fundamental principle based on faith.  There is nothing behind it except that God has the power to give us free will, and He did so.

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

1) To Mormons, it is simple.  The essence of who we have always been was never created.  That intelligence is exactly what defines us and is the only thing that is truly ours.  This is the source of our ability to choose.

2) To evangelicals (some of whom do not believe in free will) the essence of free will is that God created it within us.  That is the end of it.  It is a fundamental principle based on faith.  There is nothing behind it except that God has the power to give us free will, and He did so.

The problem with the 2nd is this:  Why would God - who loves us - give us a gift that has the potential to lead us to Hell?  That would mean that being in Hell is better than having not been created at all (being nothing).  If that's the case, then Love is also Hell.  Which doesn't make sense at all in light of the gospel.

The first is more in line with the gospel.  The WILL of God is what makes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ONE.  For us to be one with God, we must have free will.  As God did not create our essence, gifting us our free will as we gain perfect knowledge, is therefore, a great act of Love as it gives us a chance to be one with him.  Being in Hell is better than an existence without knowledge (which is still Hell).

Edited August 21, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The problem with the 2nd is this:  Why would God - who loves us - give us a gift that has the potential to lead us to Hell?  That would mean that being in Hell is better than having not been created at all (being nothing).  If that's the case, then Love is also Hell.  Which doesn't make sense at all in light of the gospel.

The first is more in line with the gospel.  The WILL of God is what makes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ONE.  For us to be one with God, we must have free will.  As God did not create our essence, gifting us our free will as we gain perfect knowledge, is therefore, a great act of Love as it gives us a chance to be one with him.  Being in Hell is better than an existence without knowledge (which is still Hell).

I of course agree with you.  But from an evangelical perspective, if we have faith that God is somehow able to overcome this apparent contradiction, then he simply can.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

I of course agree with you.  But from an evangelical perspective, if we have faith that God is somehow able to overcome this apparent contradiction, then he simply can.

I'm not sure I understand what you said here.  God overcomes the contradiction by simply doing so?  Does that mean, nobody ends up in hell?

From an evangelical/Catholic perspective, one has to either  1.) believe that God knew people would end up choosing hell as he gifted them with free will and still created them anyway. 2.) not believe anybody of God's creation is going to end up in hell. 3.)  believe that the sons of perdition are not created by God but created by Satan and those following Satan are not God's creation (a born again Christian told me this - but I don't think this is what the BA church teaches, but I could be wrong about that).

 

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not sure I understand what you said here.  God overcomes the contradiction by simply doing so?  Does that mean, nobody ends up in hell?

It has nothing to do with our final destination.  Change your focus.

We're talking about free will or lack of it due to God's level of creation of humans.

The central argument Mormons have against the idea of ex nihilo creation is that it would logically lead to predestination (no free will).  You can go around in circles with the sectarian logic on this.  And it is filled with logical fallacies.  But the thing I picked up on from @prisonchaplain was:

On 8/19/2017 at 0:45 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Creation out of nothing does not contradict God's ability to create our wills truly free. I simply believe he can do that. 

What he seemed to be saying without saying it is that logic aside, he simply has faith that such is within the power of God to do.  It may not make sense to our mortal logic.  But to God...

I don't mean to be speak for him.  But that is what I got out of his statement.

The thing is: if that is his take, I have no problem with that.  There are many things I simply believe on faith even if it doesn't make sense to my mortal mind because I've received a spiritual testimony of it.

Edited August 21, 2017 by Guest

[prisonchaplain]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Thus, we are created as fallen creatures by divine design but that to become a follower or disciple of Christ – we must be born again and take upon a new nature (including will). 

 

The Traveler

Perhaps this is where I understand our free will. We were created in the image of God, with the capacity to love God or not to. As is the case today, the children of Adam & Eve had this same choice, but coupled with the negative example of the parents. Abel chose well, Cain not so much. And, so it has gone for 6,000+ years. It may be that a Predestination proponent would accept your characterization, but us 'free will' folk would struggle with the bolded wording.

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The problem with the 2nd is this:  Why would God - who loves us - give us a gift that has the potential to lead us to Hell?  That would mean that being in Hell is better than having not been created at all (being nothing).  If that's the case, then Love is also Hell.  Which doesn't make sense at all in light of the gospel.

The first is more in line with the gospel.  The WILL of God is what makes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ONE.  For us to be one with God, we must have free will.  As God did not create our essence, gifting us our free will as we gain perfect knowledge, is therefore, a great act of Love as it gives us a chance to be one with him.  Being in Hell is better than an existence without knowledge (which is still Hell).

Why would God give us a gift (desire for the opposite sex) that could potentially lead to divorce (a ripping apart of 'one flesh')? Worse, why create us with the capacity to have forbidden love for the under-aged? Why the capacity to abuse drugs? Free will is a dangerous gift, whether we gain it by mutually agreed contract or by creation itself. It is better than some will end up in hell and that we have the capacity for full love--of God and one another. It's not better for the condemned souls that end up in hell, but God is just, so I'm convinced that those who end up in that wretched place fully embraced their rejection/rebellion against Creator God.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Perhaps this is where I understand our free will. We were created in the image of God, with the capacity to love God or not to. As is the case today, the children of Adam & Eve had this same choice, but coupled with the negative example of the parents. Abel chose well, Cain not so much. And, so it has gone for 6,000+ years. It may be that a Predestination proponent would accept your characterization, but us 'free will' folk would struggle with the bolded wording.

Now I am very confused with your theology????  If man has free will and the power to determine his fate - why does he need a savior?  Do you not realize there is a contradiction in claiming both to be true?

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

The Savior is who we call upon because we've sinned. He's our gateway to loving the Father. We repent because we've sinned, not because we were created fallen.

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Why would God give us a gift (desire for the opposite sex) that could potentially lead to divorce (a ripping apart of 'one flesh')? Worse, why create us with the capacity to have forbidden love for the under-aged? Why the capacity to abuse drugs? Free will is a dangerous gift, whether we gain it by mutually agreed contract or by creation itself. It is better than some will end up in hell and that we have the capacity for full love--of God and one another. It's not better for the condemned souls that end up in hell, but God is just, so I'm convinced that those who end up in that wretched place fully embraced their rejection/rebellion against Creator God.

Eternal Families, my man.

I just don't get why God would create somebody from NOTHING to end up in hell.  Having loved for 100 mortal years and gnash his teeth in eternity is better than nothing?  I don't understand why that would be.  So yes, it's not better for condemned souls - God created them to condemn them.  Does that make sense to you?

 

[prisonchaplain]

God did not create them to condemn them. He created them to be fully human, fully capable of love. The risk is that they would reject Him and creation, and thus land in a just eternal damnation.

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

The Savior is who we call upon because we've sinned. He's our gateway to loving the Father. We repent because we've sinned, not because we were created fallen.

 

I have a question – Do you or have you ever consider looking at empirical evidence (what actually happens on this earth that G-d has created for man) as a means to justify or verify doctrinal claims?

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

God did not create them to condemn them. He created them to be fully human, fully capable of love. The risk is that they would reject Him and creation, and thus land in a just eternal damnation.

Here is the contradiction in your line of reasoning.  There is no time when God says,"I sure didn't see that coming."  For Him, there is no risk of anything.  He KNOWS at the moment of creation exactly every step that will happen.  He knows BEFORE He ever creates that single characteristic that will upset the balance to choose right or wrong.  He KNOWS.  There is no risk.  It is as certain as the motions of a clock -- a grand and complex clock.  But there is no deviation.  And that lack of deviation is what makes it so that there is no choice.

He created every aspect of our being.  Therefore, He needs to take responsibility for every aspect of our results.  But if there was something uncreated, He takes credit/responsibility for those aspects he created at will.  But he cannot be held responsible for those elements that were pre-existent.

[Jane_Doe]

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Here is the contradiction in your line of reasoning.  There is no time when God says,"I sure didn't see that coming."  For Him, there is no risk of anything.  He KNOWS at the moment of creation exactly every step that will happen.  He knows BEFORE He ever creates that single characteristic that will upset the balance to choose right or wrong.  He KNOWS.  There is no risk.  It is as certain as the motions of a clock -- a grand and complex clock.  But there is no deviation.  And that lack of deviation is what makes it so that there is no choice.

He created every aspect of our being.  Therefore, He needs to take responsibility for every aspect of our results.  But if there was something uncreated, He takes credit/responsibility for those aspects he created at will.  But he cannot be held responsible for those elements that were pre-existent.

Carb, are you describing your LDS perspective here, or someone else's?  I haven't been following this too closely so I'm a little confused here.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Carb, are you describing your LDS perspective here, or someone else's?  I haven't been following this too closely so I'm a little confused here.

I was pointing out the flaw in the reasoning of ex nihilo proponents.  I then compared the same point to LDS theology, and how our belief removes the contradiction.

[anatess2]

54 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

God did not create them to condemn them. He created them to be fully human, fully capable of love. The risk is that they would reject Him and creation, and thus land in a just eternal damnation.

Actually, He created them to condemn them because Free Will makes it so a condemnation becomes necessary.  Don't you think?

Yes, I do know the Catholic (I would think it would be the same for Evangelicals) teaching that Adam and Eve's downfall was NOT God's plan.  And this is another one of those things that made me hound the Catholic nuns and priests in school - How can you have a God with perfect knowledge who did not know that Adam and Eve WOULD end up sinning if God gave them free will?

[Jane_Doe]

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was pointing out the flaw in the reasoning of ex nihilo proponents.  I then compared the same point to LDS theology, and how our belief removes the contradiction.

Ok.  Thanks for the clarification.  I'm not sure I would agree with your wording, but alas I'm struggling to think of better wording right now...

[prisonchaplain]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I have a question – Do you or have you ever consider looking at empirical evidence (what actually happens on this earth that G-d has created for man) as a means to justify or verify doctrinal claims?

 

The Traveler

I surmise that you have a case to make based on what you perceive to be empirical evidence. Perhaps if you present that case I can react to it and thus demonstrate my considerations one way or the other.

[prisonchaplain]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Here is the contradiction in your line of reasoning.  There is no time when God says,"I sure didn't see that coming."  For Him, there is no risk of anything.  He KNOWS at the moment of creation exactly every step that will happen.  He knows BEFORE He ever creates that single characteristic that will upset the balance to choose right or wrong.  He KNOWS.  There is no risk.  It is as certain as the motions of a clock -- a grand and complex clock.  But there is no deviation.  And that lack of deviation is what makes it so that there is no choice.

He created every aspect of our being.  Therefore, He needs to take responsibility for every aspect of our results.  But if there was something uncreated, He takes credit/responsibility for those aspects he created at will.  But he cannot be held responsible for those elements that were pre-existent.

There are several very sophisticated debates on this topic. Those of us who believe in the foreknowledge of God, but reject predestination disagree. God is not responsible for our actions, even if He knew they would happen. We truly have free will. I understand that there are philosophers who believe this contrast to be impossible. We disagree. God can know our choices and yet allow them.

[prisonchaplain]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Actually, He created them to condemn them because Free Will makes it so a condemnation becomes necessary.  Don't you think?

Yes, I do know the Catholic (I would think it would be the same for Evangelicals) teaching that Adam and Eve's downfall was NOT God's plan.  And this is another one of those things that made me hound the Catholic nuns and priests in school - How can you have a God with perfect knowledge who did not know that Adam and Eve WOULD end up sinning if God gave them free will?

I'd answer that God can create, know, and yet allow us to make our choices. He did not create us to condemn us. He created us to have free will and love, knowing that some/many would chose not to, understanding that those would end up in hell. Yet, each soul has total liberty to embrace or reject God. He corners no one, nor does he allow Satan to do so.

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

There are several very sophisticated debates on this topic. Those of us who believe in the foreknowledge of God, but reject predestination disagree. God is not responsible for our actions, even if He knew they would happen. We truly have free will. I understand that there are philosophers who believe this contrast to be impossible. We disagree. God can know our choices and yet allow them.

PC, I must admit that all such arguments leave me thoroughly nonplussed. Here is the root of my confusion:

• It is 8:00 am, and God has decided to create me at 9:00 am.
• Because of his foreknowledge, he knows that, at 9:30 am, I will commit a sin.
• God modifies his creation of me so that, at 9:30 am, I will not commit that particular sin.
• However, God (through his foreknowledge) also knows that at 9:45, I will commit a different sin.
• God chooses not to modify his creation of me, knowing full well that by creating me as he plans to, I will sin at 9:45.
• God follows through and creates me at 9:00. Here I am!
• Either at or after my creation, God endows me with Free Will®.
• At 9:45, I sin.
• God says, "Hey, I gave you Free Will®, so your eternal damnation is just."

What, exactly, does "free will" mean, if God has the option of creating me differently so my outcome is different but chooses not to do so?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

There are several very sophisticated debates on this topic. Those of us who believe in the foreknowledge of God, but reject predestination disagree. God is not responsible for our actions, even if He knew they would happen. We truly have free will. I understand that there are philosophers who believe this contrast to be impossible. We disagree. God can know our choices and yet allow them.

I did not make the argument that His foreknowledge causes our choices.  I couldn't have.  I don't believe it.  I agree with you that His foreknowledge does not CAUSE the event to happen.  That was never my point.  I never used that as a part of the argument that it is predestination.  I used it only to counter your use of the word "risk".

I'm pointing out the nature of cause and effect.  Whatever our "choice" would be, God created it.  He created whatever our desires would be.  He created our nature just as much as a clock maker creates every gear and spring and weight in a clock.  He does it with purpose knowing exactly how that clock works, then sets it in motion.

This is the central question:  Can you explain or define your idea of what "choice" is?  My definition is whatever makes us "us" is set to make a given choice in a given set of circumstances.  Let's call this "our character".

[prisonchaplain]

57 minutes ago, Vort said:

What, exactly, does "free will" mean, if God has the option of creating me differently so my outcome is different but chooses not to do so?

I know we're going in circles with this, but all I can keep saying is that God does not create us to sin, but with the capacity to do so. Every choice we make we make. God seldom modifies the playing out of human history, and when He does it appears to be primarily in response to prayer. He's not got us in a maze where He opens/shuts options to corral us towards a particular end. He wills that all be saved, yet not all are. We sometimes choose not to be.

[prisonchaplain]

@Carborendum I guess we're confusing each other. You say you agree that God did not predestine us, yet you seem to define foreknowledge as a kind of predestination--God created us to make the choices we make. Perhaps that's what you believe the Evangelical understanding is. So, I keep saying that's not it. God did not make us to sin, to choose hell, etc. We have that capacity because freedom means we have to be able to not choose God and His love.