God ceasing to be God


askandanswer
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 4/20/2019 at 6:57 AM, askandanswer said:

Alma 42:22  But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

My understanding of verse 22 is that if the works of justice were to be destroyed, then God would cease to be God. This understanding might or might not be correct, and this scripture might or might not be true. But if this scripture is true, and if my understanding of it is correct, could we then conclude that a collapse, or a failure, of justice, would violate one of the conditions on which God holds and exercises His power?

 

On 4/22/2019 at 11:47 AM, mordorbund said:

Or.... Alma is engaging in a rhetorical device similar to mathematical proof by contradiction.

What @mordorbund said. This is a way of saying, in essence, "Under these circumstance reality would not exist," a way to show that Condition A must be false, because if it were true, that would lead to an obviously false situation (e.g. God is sinful, God would stop being God, etc.). Consider 2 Nephi 2:13, which I have split up into bullet points:

Quote
  • 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.

Note the strict logical progression, argued as a lawyer might before a jury: No law means no sin, which means no righteousness, which means no happiness, which means no punishment or misery, which means no God. And this means no us, no earth, no existence, and everything has "vanished away". But the fact that we're talking about these things demonstrates that we really do exist, and everything hasn't vanished away—ergo, there must be a law.

Frankly, a satisfying argument. You may disagree with the premise, or you may find fault with some of the stated consequences, but I think this is brilliant and holds up very well. In any case, the point is that it's an example of this same tactic, proving a thing by showing that the contrary is untenable.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share