Today I wrapped up a series of sermons from Genesis simply titled “Creation.” The sub-title, though, was “Beyond the Debate.” With this series what I attempted to do was sidestep the heated debate over the “how” of creation and get at the “why.” Instead of getting all bound up in the various Christian and non-Christian theories of how God created all things, I simply assumed that He is the Creator and worked at allowing Genesis 1-3 speak their own ancient message. For some people in my congregation, this approach may not have been fully satisfying, but I sure learned a lot. I started the series with a great respect for the opening chapters of Genesis and I came away nearly awestruck. In my view Genesis 1-3 towers over Western Civilization as a document defining our place in the universe. Whether people are Christians, agnostics or atheists; if they live in the West, they must wrestle with or against the Genesis creation story.
Since I’ve just spent several weeks immersed in Genesis, I would like to share two “Big Ideas” that I think are amazing.
I have written a number of posts on how we can discover a lot about God through what He has created. To me this seems so obviously true that I find it hard to believe that people would think otherwise. I remember in art school, during my undergraduate days, we learned to tease out of a piece of art many insights about the artist. This is one of the primary disciplines within both art history and the study of artifacts in archeology. Likewise the artistry and personality of the Creator can be seen in His artifact which is the universe.
Here is a “Big Idea.”
If the universe came into being after not existing (in other words, it had a beginning) then the existence and non-existence of things must result from the will of the Creator. In short, if God permitted things not to be, then He must have willed them to come into existence when He made them. Hence, we can see from the fact that the universe had a beginning that God is a willful being. He is not just an amorphous force as in Star Wars. Since he willfully brought things into existence we can also see that things exist as long as he wills them to be. Therefore, His will is what preserves all things. Wow, God is right now willing your existence!
Here is another “Big Idea.”
The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” mentioned in Genesis 2 and 3 has a very profound and contemporary meaning. When Adam and Eve “ate” of the tree they were not simply breaking a rule. The Hebrew word used for “knowledge” has the meaning of a deep and intimate knowing. It is a more experiential knowing than our Western intellectual concept of knowledge. A modern colloquial way of describing Adam and Eve’s actions is to see them as taking for themselves the prerogative of deciding what is right and wrong; good and evil. God had reserved for Himself the “tree.” In other words, He alone has the authority to decide what is morally right and wrong. However, Genesis 3 tells us that man took it upon himself to rebel against God and make himself the arbiter of morality. This is man’s first and greatest sin—making up our own moral codes. This sin also is known as both relativism and moral subjectivism. It is deadly.
Genesis is very profound.
| | | |
|
|
Is not becoming the "arbiter of morality" the human condition? Are any of us NOT moral arbiters? Each moral choice is not as if we can choose the sin of eating and apple OR the obedient behavior of NOT eating the apple. Even the most clearly stated moral laws found in the scriptures are made to be morally relative. "Thou shalt not kill" for example. The apparent relativity you now call dangerous, is a necessary and positive component of the law.
I got news for you, religion cannot be morality's only arbiter.
Affection and compassion are human values that are independent of religion. They have no relationship with any particular religion. Unbelievers have the capacity to promote these things. This should provide insight as to why Christ was found to eat with them.
Aquinas identifies human nature as defining moral law: "The rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts."
If becoming moral arbiters is our greatest sin, then God did not show wisdom in placing us into mortality with this kind of human nature.
I missed where Thom said that religion was morality's only arbiter. I think his point is that man cannot be the arbiter of morality. Religion is too often perverted by man, for man, for this very reason- to give some foundation to moral subjectivity. To try and become God ourselves and by extension, to promote the illusion of being in control.
God's law is not relative nor ambiguous. Don't commit adultery. Don't murder. Don't covet. To say these are relative and need human arbitration to determine the meaning is human folly and the whole point!
Human's thinking they can tweak the law to their own selfish advantage. This is the danger that Thom describes.
Also, the idea that compassion and affection is a human value independent of religion is not really supported by history. I'm not sure what your point is but ancient history does not support the idea of compassion and affection in man or his societies prior to Christianity emerging.
Witness the ancient Greeks, an advanced society for the time who regularly engaged in infanticide and other acts which surely lack basic compassion or affection, even for their own progeny. Another example is the wholesale slaughter and enslavement of conquered City/States by pagans throughout history. Not much evidence there of compassion or affection.
In fact, Christianity was at the forefront in developing these concepts because of the newfound respect for the sanctity of life, given that each human was a creation of God, individually valued and born in God's Image. These Christian values translated directly into much of the basis of Western Civilization.
Much of Western Civilization's morality, therefore, cannot be attributed to anything other than Christ and the changes Christianity brought to the world. These were radical concepts when introduced, not fundamental to humanity at all. You cannot seriously contend that because a person living in the United States today can be compassionate, this concept is innate in every person. Even in today's world, pagan societies don't value these virtues.
Finally, as to your last comment, God's wisdom (which is something I cannot presume to judge) is evident in that, while he gave us the capacity to make morally sound choices, and the ability to discern what those rules are (reason), he also gave us free will, to follow or not, to choose him or not. If we are not free to abandon reason, reject God and make up our own rules, we are nothing more than animals following instinct. Its the freedom to reason and choose that seems to me incredibly wise, and loving.
You wrote: Is not becoming the "arbiter of morality" the human condition? Are any of us NOT moral arbiters? Each moral choice is not as if we can choose the sin of eating and apple OR the obedient behavior of NOT eating the apple. Even the most clearly stated moral laws found in the scriptures are made to be morally relative. "Thou shalt not kill" for example. The apparent relativity you now call dangerous, is a necessary and positive component of the law.
●How exactly is a clear command like, “You shall not murder” a relativist statement. Yes, there can be mitigating circumstances; however, when Jeffery Dahmer drugged and slaughtered individuals, he was committing murder. I do not see how God intended His commands to be relativistic or subjective ethical “suggestions.”
You wrote: I got news for you, religion cannot be morality's only arbiter.
●Hmmm…I think this is what my post is saying. Man is in competition with God for being the arbiter of morality. Are you not reading what I write before you make your comments?
You wrote: Aquinas identifies human nature as defining moral law: "The rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts."
●This is obvious. But what you are missing is that—as Aquinas notes—human reason is both a creation and an implantation of God through nature.
You wrote: If becoming moral arbiters is our greatest sin, then God did not show wisdom in placing us into mortality with this kind of human nature.
●God reserves for Himself the right to set moral truth and implant it in nature, man’s heart and promulgate it in His divine law. Additionally, God’s law is a reflection of His own nature. Therefore, man’s reason, properly operating, is tuned to God’s law found in nature, his own heart and promulgated in God’s divine law.
Why was it wrong to eat an Apple
in the first place?
That's a stupid law!
Hey God, cut us a little slack man!
Joe
Affection and compassion are human values that are independent of religion. They have no relationship with any particular religion. Unbelievers have the capacity to promote these things. This should provide insight as to why Christ was found to eat with them."
It seems to me that we humans are wired at birth with emotional components along with the rational components for good moral behavior and that they are not independent of religion, but reflections of God's law written on men's hearts. This is the same writing that I thought Gecko was previously denying? The sinful world begins to squelch that almost immediately, which is the legacy of Adam and Eve. In some case entire societies become blind to it, such as the case of the Spartans leaving the weak to die in the interest of achieving their military goals or our society trying to convince us of the rightness of contraception, abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex and a whole host of other sins.
ron
Can you give examples? I want to make sure I understand what you say. Thank you.
As to the second "Big Idea", it seems to me that this describes the birth of the Ego- transforming from a selfless, un-selfconscious being to a self-centered and selfish being, capable of anything. We see this as Adam becomes aware of his nakedness and the story of Cain and Able. This is the struggle now in our nature, to succumb to the Ego and all its myriad deceptions or to follow Christ's example of selflessness- the emptying of the self which we call Love and acting out of that essential nature that comes from God. This is the root. As you say, profound implications for us all.
Compare that theory with the idea of an Uncaused Creator that created a universe perfectly suited for the existence of us.
The wonderfully complex universe, solar system, planet and our own biology all scream out.....NOT AN ACCIDENT! I don't have to imagine an infinite number of dimensions to try and explain the obvious. More to the point....given the choices, who could reasonably discard God?
If you haven't seen, then you haven't read the Bible in your endorsement of a moral justification of war? The moral law is relative, Or perhaps those who cannot see it are more spiritually blind than the law is relative.
Is there an ample amount of relativity in sending involuntarily unbaptised dead infants to Hell, or the outskirts of Hell, or somewhere other than your Paradise? It would seem we don't need to worry about the Dauhmers as much as those who are acclaimed as God's current voice for doctrine.
●It wasn’t an apple. It was the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
●What is fascinating to me is how literate non-believers can wax eloquent regarding all kinds of ancient literature such as the Iliad, Odyssey, or Gilgamesh. They relish the allegorical, symbolic and artistic motifs. They work overtime at attempting to be sensitive to the cultural settings not wanting to superimpose anachronistic viewpoints on the ancient texts. Yet, when examining the Bible they suddenly become brain-dead. “Duh, why don’t God let people eat apples?”
Then they want to say that believers are a bunch of yokels.
Practical application always gets to the core of fabrications.
●Gheesh, Gecko. I hope I don’t have to once again prove that the LDS has its own Just War Theory. I am also quite confident that I can prove through your LDS authorized leaders that the LDS stands forthrightly against moral relativism and is strongly opposed to the view that God’s laws are relative. They for certain do not believe such a thing in regard to the “law of tithing”—right?
●Okay, let’s get a little intellectually serious for a moment. A just war doctrine makes no sense without a belief in the moral restriction against murder. Think about it, Gecko. Murder is the taking of life without any God-given authority. Only God has the authority to take life. However, it is clear from Scripture that God has delegated the responsibility to take life “justly” under certain circumstances. He has delegated this awesome responsibility to governing authorities in order to protect the body politic. We’ve been over this many times. The Bible states this and the LDS officially allows its adherents to participate in a just war without moral recrimination. End of argument.
You wrote: Is there an ample amount of relativity in sending involuntarily unbaptised dead infants to Hell, or the outskirts of Hell, or somewhere other than your Paradise? It would seem we don't need to worry about the Dauhmers as much as those who are acclaimed as God's current voice for doctrine.
●Do I sense a sore-loser’s attitude here, Gecko. Again, orthodox Christians do not believe that unbaptized infants suffer eternal punishment. Get a grip.
It is certainly clear to some Christian Churches that war is not the way of God. The Amish, Hutterites, Old German Baptist Brethren, Old Order River Brethren, and others in the Anabaptist tradition, Doukhobors, Molokans, Bruderhof Communities, Schwenkfelders, Moravians, and even some groups within the Pentecostal movement don't see it in the Bible.
Until recently, Puri's church was a Peace Church.
So, now you are saying God's law is relative. Of course God's commandment is not stated in relative terms. It is simply "Thou shall not kill" But now you only begin to confirm God's law can be applied relatively. When? Well, you now tell us whenever the right PEOPLE say so. Those right people are the presiding American government. So if the President declares war it is by definition, just. But then many others in Orthodoxy have other circumstances, more restrictive circumstances to pretend that God is on their side. In the end it justifies itself without Biblical confirmation.
But for Thom it works like this
1. The Moral Laws of God are not relative
2. God's laws of Morality can be ammended in society by who the Orthodoxy identify and for whatever reason, ensuring
3. God's Moral Laws are not relative.
=========================================
So, do not pretend at God's Moral Laws remaining unaltered over time in their application.
There was no previous war that the United States initiated quite like that against Iraq. It was universally supported by the conservative wing of the Orthodox Christian churches and universally opposed by the the liberal wing.
The objective of just cause should be to fight where God would justify. The fruits of just a war would be victory. Over time during the fight greater and greater agreement would be found to justify such a war.
As it turns out, the war in Iraq is not a just war though you have called it just. All the reasons for war have failed in this case.
Your doctrines of just causes have been made to be so relative that they defy God, himself. And this nation has been punished for it/
righteous reasons for war:
"I still say that there are conditions when entrance into war is justifiable, and when a Christian nation may, without violation of principles, take up arms against an opposing force. Such a condition, however, is not a real or fancied insult given by one nation to another. When this occurs proper reparation may be made by mutual understanding, apology or by arbitration. Neither is there justifiable cause found in a desire or even a need for territorial expansion. The taking of territory implies the subjugation of the weak to the strong—the application of the jungle law. Nor is war justified in an attempt to enforce a new order of government, or even to impel others to a particular form of worship, however better the government or eternally true the principles of the enforced religion may be."
The LDS does not make a distinction between a just or unjust war between nations or peoples. It all but divorces itself from the actions of governments, taking action publically in very restricted ways. A principle of faith for us is to obey the laws of the land wherever we live to the best of our consciences. We do not set ourselves up as arbiters as to what constitutes just or unjust wars then meddle in government to influence participation in war.
If this were true then there would be a negative correlation between believers and nonbelievers. Infidelity and divorce would be unheard of among Christians and a practiced art among atheists. Yet atheists have a documented divorce rate LOWER than orthodox Christians.
●I think there are some significant problems with this theory. For instance, if each discrete dimension produces a universe, then, what caused that universe to begin from a singularity when it did not exist “before.” On the other hand, if the dimensions have any kind of sequential relationship (implied by the idea of “an infinite number of chances”), then this theory must overcome the problem of crossing and infinite regress. If they are discrete, then there is no real “infinite number of chances” since they are each independently popping into existence at a causal point—which has no explanation. What causes the dimensions to erupt into a universe?
●As a rule neither do Christian denominations make public pronouncements regarding the “actions of governments” other than to identify biblical or theological principles. And, of course, this is exactly what the LDS has done regarding Mormon participation in the military and war—and you know this. You, again, are obfuscating with this comment as can be seen from the LDS position that you quoted.
You wrote: But for Thom it works like this
1. The Moral Laws of God are not relative
2. God's laws of Morality can be ammended in society by who the Orthodoxy identify and for whatever reason, ensuring
3. God's Moral Laws are not relative.
●This is a complete figment of your rather fevered imagination. Your second premise is your premise and not mine. Remember, it is you who is asserting relativism and I am the one who is asserting God’s moral law.
●Again, the LDS does not adhere to moral relativism regarding God’s law and they hold their own position on the justifiable participation in war.
"I still say that there are conditions when entrance into war is justifiable, and when a Christian nation may, without violation of principles, take up arms against an opposing force.”
●The only germane question is, “How can you be a moral relativist and call yourself a good Mormon?”
Simply put, man's conduct is no proof whatsoever that God's Law is relative.
On this theory of cosmologists that I brought up. I appreciated the response even though it strayed into causation which I know you were kind of avoiding. I couldn't resist though. You are correct that this theory still fails to, or avoids, addressing a cause. I think it makes the causation issue actually a bigger problem to explain because now this remarkable event must have happened and continues to happen infinitely before being able to understand how it could have happened even once (without God as the cause).
I really posted the comment to illuminate how far these theorists are willing to go to avoid the possibility of a Creator.
Practical application always gets to the core of fabrications.
Ok....."Thou shalt not commit adultery.".....and "The wages of sin are death" Not a lot of ambiguity there.
You imply in your posts the intellectual dishonesty of the the other posters (Thom comes to mind) but your arguments (more opinions really) lack coherence. I have reviewed prior threads and the only consistency in your positions is that they necessarily contradict Thom. It makes one wonder about your purpose.
If this were true then there would be a negative correlation between believers and nonbelievers."
How do you draw this conclusion? My whole point is that every man has God's law written on his heart. Since religion deals in God's law, even atheists have religion whether they acknowledge it or not. This is why good atheists and pagans can behave better than bad Christians. Christians should have a superior understanding of God's law, but this by no means guarantees that they will act on it. Christians seem to be just as prone to self-delusion and sin as anyone else.
Please explain how a moral law from God is not made relative through changing it, practiced in society and thereby accomodated by decentralized Protestant religions all because the "appointed" government officials, for sure appointed by God Himself, make those moral laws relative.
Thom remarks "Remember, it is you who is asserting relativism and I am the one who is asserting God’s moral law. "
Please explain how a moral law from God is not made relative through politicians changing its application, then changed is practiced in society and thereby accomodated by decentralized Protestant religions all because the "appointed" government officials, for sure appointed by God Himself, make those moral laws relative.
====================================================
On the unrelative version of the moral law of adultery the following is offered.
Our new arrival remarks: "Thou shalt not commit adultery......and The wages of sin are death Not a lot of ambiguity there."
Good, now tell me what Orthodox denomination puts to death adulterers? None. They used to you know, in every case. Now Thom has told us that government officials act in the name of God. They are tasked to fulfill God's wishes (that's a zinger). The law has been made so relative that those divorcing need not ever worry for their life and some need not worry about anything at all. And now we have a divorce that is no fault and without covenant. And all this is supported by Church leaders.....you.
Where God's law is not practiced, it does not exist except in His mind. It is no longer written on anybody's heart. And where people violate the whole of all God's Laws as originally established by Him, all of it does not exist here. It is all in His mind alone. None of it is inscribed in the hearts of man. And the Great apostasy reins. Thank you very much. Elvis is now leaving the room.
●By the way, I really appreciated your comment because it was so closely related to the topic and challenged us to think deeper on the subject of God’s creation. I believe Christians need to be aware of the alternative theories being generated for the origin of the universe and to be able to identify some of the weaknesses of these theories.
●I have bold-faced the portion of your comment that I think is at the center of your view and that so diverges from mine (and others). First, though, let me deal with some minor issues you raised.
1. Orthodox denominations no longer putting to death adulterers: Any Christian denomination that put to death adulterers at any time in Western history was acting immorally and unbiblically. In John 8 Jesus freed the woman caught in adultery from her accusers and told her to “go and sin no more.” It is not the responsibility of the church to mete our civil punishments. God has not delegated His wrath against criminals to the church. He has delegated His wrath against criminals to the civil magistrate.
2. The idea that the civil magistrate is an instrument of God’s punishment is a “zinger” (meaning that this is a stupid or ridiculous idea): Of course, the Bible clearly states this in two unambiguous passages in the NT (one quoted below) and it is implied in a number of others. Additionally, the LDS believes in this principle as well. Gecko seems to believe that if a government fails to mete out proper justice that this nullifies a truth established in God’s Word. This, of course, makes God’s laws and commandments contingent upon human actions. This is equivalent to saying that because people break speed laws; therefore, there are no speed laws. Sixth graders no better.
Romans 13:1-4 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
●Just for clarification’s sake, the governing authorities that Paul was contemporaneously referring to were not Brigham Young or Mitt Romney (LDS leaders). Rather, it was likely such paragons of virtue as Nero or Caligula.
3. That church leaders support no-fault divorce: Huh? When did that start?
Okay, now for the drum roll please:
Gecko-concept:
….Where God's law is not practiced, it does not exist except in His mind. It is no longer written on anybody's heart. And where people violate the whole of all God's Laws as originally established by Him, all of it does not exist here. It is all in His mind alone. None of it is inscribed in the hearts of man.
●Here is the big confusion. Most of us believe that the fact that there are people who are drug dealers does not change the fact that it is against the law to be a drug dealer. These people are called “law-breakers.” We believe that, for instance, the State of California establishes the laws that govern the people of California and not the drug dealers. However, in Gecko-land, if there are drug dealers then there is no law against being a drug dealer. Now, most of us would say, “Huh, how’d you get that?” But remember, Gecko-land is different. In Gecko-land, even if God inscribes a law on the hearts of all men and then openly establishes it in His Word; if some people disobey His law, then there is no God-inscribed law and even the written divine law is “relative.” Just say, “Huh?”
I find it interesting that Gecko points to "decentralized Protestant religions" as if the rest of us including the LDS bear no responsibility for our government, laws and elected officials. Jesus himself clearly indicated that governments have authority when He told us to "Render to Caeser..." and when He acknowledged Pilate's authority, 'Jesus answered (him), "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.'" Citizens have the responsibility to follow the civil law where it does not conflict with God's. Our government may permit immoral behavior without sanctioning it, but so does God.
I agree with you that people make a mess of trying to follow what they know is right, and some don't bother trying to follow any rules at all, God's or man's. That includes politicians and church leaders too. All fall short of God's Glory. Nevertheless, as has been so well stated, that doesn't delete the rule or make it less of a rule.
If the Law was relative, it would be merely a suggestion. It doesn't fit the definition of the word law ("a rule of conduct or action formally recognized as binding; a binding custom or practice of a community"- websters new collegiate) If God has Laws, they cannot be relative or they aren't laws at all. Are you claiming that God has no Law, only suggestions about living?
What about the other laws that are God's? Are the physical laws of nature subject to interpretation? Do you think that God makes some laws immutable (gravity) and others not? Why the difference?
Can you explain your position?
Also, Huh?
I would argue that Gen 1-3 is a theocentric perspective (one which the interpreter should keep in mind) on beginnings (the word, Genesis, means 'beginnings') on the following basis:
1. Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning, God...." The Bible assumes God's existence and presence in the universe. There is not treatise here arguing for the existence of God.
2. Genesis 1:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and Genesis 2:2 & 3 all begin with 'God'. The creation story is a story about God's work in the universe. The story is to bring us to worship the Creator God.
3. While some have argued that the creation story of Genesis 2: 4 ff is an anthropocentric perspective, clearly God is the actor in the creation. The 'humanness' of the Genesis 2 story doesn't detract from who is the creator.
Nahum Sarna: "Whether the Hebrew Genesis account was meant to be science or not, it was certainly meant to convey statements of faith....it is part of the biblical polemic against paganism and an introduction to the religious ideas characteristic of the whole of biblical literature. It tell us something about the nature of the one God who is the Creator and supreme sovereign of the world and whose will is absolute. It asserts that God is outside the realm of nature, which is wholly subservient to HIm,. He has no myth; that is, there are no stories about any events in His life. Magic plays no part in the worship of Him. The story also tells us something of the nature of man, a God-like creature, uniquely endowed with dignity, honor and infinite worth, into whose hands God has entrusted mastery over His creation. Finally, this narrative tells us something about the biblical concept of reality. It proclaims the essential goodness of life and assumes a universal moral order governing human society." (Understanding Genesis, 1966, p. 3)
I hope that helps. Timbo. Thank you for asking.
ron
God does not recommend believers think well of the wickedness in our presiding rulers. God would not have us presume His authority is the cloak that ruler necessary wears by virtue of the position. Yet that is the case you make.
A part of the context of Paul's words you omitted where Paul identifies such a ruler as a minister of God - doing good continually, not presuming to be a minister of God to be found unrighteous:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
I find it remarkable that folks can speak of God as if in human like form, with human attributes, creating human beings, yet not able to speak of THEIR God with any fondness in terms that are more appropriately alien to us... attributes they believe it possesses.
I find it remarkable that folks can speak of God as if in human like form, with human attributes, creating human beings, yet not able to speak of THEIR God with any fondness in terms that are more appropriately alien to us... attributes they believe it possesses.
Gecko,
You have missed the point I was making. The 'humanness' of Gen. 2 is calculated on the main feature of the chapter, which is the creation of man. The 'humanness' is not about the character of God. God is still the creator, the main actor in the story.
I hope this clarifies what I was saying.
Come back if this clarification is unhelpful.
ron
Substantial correction to you Tom:
God does not recommend believers think well of the wickedness in our presiding rulers. God would not have us presume His authority is the cloak that ruler necessary wears by virtue of the position. Yet that is the case you make.
●First, I am amazed and gratified that you are at least referencing the Scripture.
●Second, of course, as usual you are completely misrepresenting my point. I am not in the least suggesting that believers “think well of the wickedness of our presiding rulers.” That is a ridiculous misrepresentation of my counterpoint to your assertion which is as follows (I quote):
Now Thom has told us that government officials act in the name of God. They are tasked to fulfill God's wishes (that's a zinger).
●Oh, by the way, in your last comment you just contradicted your point that it is a “zinger” of an idea that God has “tasked” government officials with His wishes. Here you go…read carefully…the following is Gecko contradicting Gecko…
A part of the context of Paul's words you omitted where Paul identifies such a ruler as a minister of God - doing good continually, not presuming to be a minister of God to be found unrighteous:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
●Let me help you. See, Gecko, God cannot identify a “ruler as a minister of God” to do good as you stated and quoted from Romans 13:4 and at the same time maintain that the idea of God tasking government officials with His wishes is a “zinger.” You are playing both sides of the fence while being firmly stuck on a sharp fence post—ouch!
●What is it—please choose one:
A. Thom is asserting a stupid “zinger” by saying that God has “tasked” government officials with His wishes (that they do good, etc.).
Or…
B. Thom is stupid for not seeing that God has identified “ruler(s) as a minister(s) of God – doing good continually (His divine wish).
You wrote: I find it remarkable that folks can speak of God as if in human like form, with human attributes, creating human beings, yet not able to speak of THEIR God with any fondness in terms that are more appropriately alien to us... attributes they believe it possesses.
●I find it remarkable that people can believe in a deity that lives on Kolob, has a body of flesh and bones, has a goddess wife, has procreative relations to produce billions of “spirit children”, and formed the planets out of material he didn’t create.
I'm so glad I asked the question and I'm grateful for your illuminating response. It was helpful. Thanks.
It has prompted me to dig a bit deeper in this area...never a bad thing.
Ha! Very funny. The pot calls the kettle black.
Where does this come from? Is this from the "Book of Mormon"? (Guessing from the context here.)
"The creator goes off on one wild, specific tangent after another, or millions simultaneously, with an exuberance that would seem to be unwarranted, and with an abandoned energy sprung from an unfathomable font. What is going on here? The point of the dragonfly’s terrible lip, the giant water bug, birdsong, or the beautiful dazzle and flash of sunlighted minnows, is not that it all fits together like clockwork—for it doesn’t, particularly, not even inside the goldfish bowl—but that it all flows so freely wild, like the creek, that it all surges in such a free fringed tangle. Freedom is the world’s water and weather, the world’s nourishment freely given, its soil and sap: and the creator loves pizzazz."
- Annie Dillard
Teaching a Stone to Talk
Long before our God began his creations, he dwelt on a mortal world like ours, one of the creations that his Father had created for him and his brethren. He, with many of his brethren, was obedient to the principles of the eternal gospel. One among these, it is presumed, was a savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection and an exaltation on an eternal, celestial world. 8 Then they gained the power and godhood of their Father and were made heirs of all that he had, continuing his works and creating worlds of their own for their own posterity—the same as their Father had done before, and his Father, and his Father, and on and on. With these things in mind, W. W. Phelps, in a hymn, asks the question:
“If you could hie to Kolob
In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward
With that same speed to fly,
D’ye think that you could ever,
Through all eternity,
Find out the generation
Where Gods began to be?” 9
Nothing is more basic in the restored gospel than these truths that, because of recent events of space travel, are so timely. The great hope of the gospel for us is that we may come to a oneness with our Lord and our Father and partake of this same work and glory and godhood. Being joint-heirs of all that the Father has, we may then look forward to using those powers to organize still other worlds from the unorganized matter that exists throughout boundless space. Creating other worlds, peopling them with our own eternal posterity, providing a savior for them, and making known to them the saving principles of the eternal gospel, that they may have the same experiences we are now having and be exalted with us in their turn—this is eternal life. 10 No wonder this possibility continues to fascinate and inspire Saints of all ages. This hope is what inspires members of the Church to seek eternal marriage and to seek in all things to be one with our Lord Jesus Christ, because we want to be with him and participate in all the marvelous things of which Paul the apostle said: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” 11 Kent Nielsen, “People on Other Worlds,” New Era, Apr 1971, 12
You see Thom, you have many inconsistencies, even contradictions, resulting from the attempt to Christianize the God of Buddha.
Here I take up the dilemma of your hypothesis of first cause, as it should most properly be called.
We have come to ask how there comes to be in our consciousness the regular phenomena involving our senses. We are certainly obligated to look upon them as the effects of some cause. We may think it to be a form of matter. Or we may conclude, as some do, that matter is only a certain mode of manifestation of spirit, which is therefore the true cause. We may characterize all the changes fashioned in our consciousness to immediate divine power. Whatever the cause, there must be a cause. Further it must be the first cause, or not a first cause. If it is the first cause, we need not think any further about it. If it is not, there must be a cause prior. We cannot carry out an examination regarding their causation, without inevitably committing ourselves to the hypothesis of a First Cause.
We are obliged now, if we have minimal courage in taking the next step, to inquire as to determine the nature of this First Cause. In taking that step, we are driven by an inevitable logic to certain conclusions.
Is the First Cause finite or infinite?
If we say finite we have ourselves a dilemma. A finite First Cause is limited. Where it is limited, it necessarily has something beyond its limits: it is completely impossible to consider a thing as bounded without considering a region surrounding its boundaries. What conclusions must be drawn of this region? If the First Cause is limited, that region beyond must have NO First Cause. It must be uncaused. But if we acknowledge that there can be something uncaused, there is no reason to presume a cause for anything and EVERYTHING.
If beyond the bounds of that finite region over which the First Cause extends, there lies a finite region, and we admit that there is an infinite uncaused surrounding the finite caused; we implicitly discard the hypothesis of causation altogether. Thus it is impossible to consider the First Cause as finite. And if it cannot be finite it must be infinite.
Now, given no first cause, given there is broad agreement and confirmation that God exists, how illogical will you persist in being?
God is not just the uncaused cause, He is existence in its maximum, most complete and essential sense. Just talking about boundaries and regions already presumes limits such as spacial or temporal structure, which do not constrain God, but are defined by God. For something else to exist independent of God contradicts the very definition and makes Him incomplete and thus limited. For other "uncaused causes" to exist, they would have to do so within a common structure of existence greater than either, which makes them in a sense caused / defined by the common structure. This is again a contradiction leaving you to say that they did not really qualify as multiple uncaused causes and that the common structure of existence better points to God, the single uncaused cause. If this were not so, other uncaused causes could never be known, even by God, since they would be entirely independent with no intersecting or mutual interaction and would thus for all practical purposes not exist.
Please do not characterize what I wrote.
1. I make not statement that God is constrained.
2. "For something else to exist independent of [the Buddha] God contradicts the very definition and makes Him incomplete and thus limited." That is your definition of God tht is contradictive and that is my point. You unwittingly agree. No fix your definition, It ain't working.
3. "For other "uncaused causes" to exist, they would have to do so within a common structure...blah...blah."
I didn't say other uncaused Gods exist (that would be irrational)....I said logically they can be proved not to exist if you read the logic. You can't even follow what I have written with this comment.
4. Read it again
What is your point? You bounce around between finite and infinite, but you seem to think of them both within a limited construct defined by your own perception. Infinite has its limitations too. For example, the set of even numbers is infinite, but so is the set of odd numbers and they are two completely different non-intersecting sets. Each is infinite, yet limited in that neither possesses the other. You can dream up an infinite number of sets like this. On the other hand, consider the set of all real numbers between zero and one. This set is also infinite yet it's definitely bounded on both ends. God transcends all limited created existence in every possible way. He is pure existence, uncaused. God as a first cause only means something from the vantage of His creation, which unlike Him, is limited, changeable and a product of causality. God Himself is immutable. He just IS in its fullest possible sense. If God could change, there would be a state of existence or perfection He does not already possess, which would make Him less than God.
You said, "And if it cannot be finite it must be infinite, with nothing uncaused." As a Christian I believe I will live forever, which is an infinite amount of time and I am definitely caused. That doesn't make me God. My point is that just because something is infinite doesn't make it God. God is not just infinite, He is unlimited. If everything is caused including God as you falsely conclude, then God Himself would mutable and therefore limited and not God. It seems to me that you can't get beyond your own anthropomorphic perception of God. It's one thing to see God in a very limited way mirrored in yourself, it's another to project yourself into God and bind Him by your limitations.
The last sentence in this quote is not deductive reasoning at all. It leaps to the conclusion that if there is something uncaused, then nothing has a cause. But we don't have to presume causation. It isn't a hypothesis at all. It is measurable and verifiable. If I apply force to an object and it moves there is causation.
Gecko: "And if it cannot be finite it must be infinite, with nothing uncaused."
I agree with this sentence although probably not in the way it was intended- God (uncaused cause) must be infinite and no thing (nothing) else is uncaused because all things were caused by God. Adding the word "else" changes it. Once again, the premise that if one thing has no cause, nothing has a cause is not really logically deducible.
Part of the problem with the post is the "logic" is a bit incomprehensible or I may just be dumb (take a shot if you must....here is an opening) but it would be very helpful if you could possible simply state your thesis in one sentence. Define the point you are making and perhaps it will be more understandable.
It appears that you offer this as proof that God must have been created since there can be no uncaused cause but frankly, I'm not even sure of that exactly. Of course, if the thesis is that God was created....at some point you reach the beginning point of the process and have the same problem....how did the first one begin?
Finally, on another point, in doing some research, the Book of Mormon teaches that there is only one God. (Mosiah 15:1,5; Alma 11:28; 2 Nephi 31:21) but Mormonism teaches there are many gods. (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5). Please explain this apparent inconsistency. I think its relevant to the point you are trying to make.
We have arrived safely in VA and we are setting things up here. The first night with the Youth went well. There is a lot of work ahead in the next few months with multiple district events and the need to raise money to pay for those events.
I see that Gecko is back on his idea that infinite nothing must be an impossibility for God. This, of course, is ludicrous. Nothing does not exist and so is uncreated because it does not exist. There is infinite nothing but only so much as an infinite God has infinite potential to create within that which does not exist.
It honestly hurts my head to think that Gecko believes his argument to have any consistency with reality. "There is infinite nothing so there must be no first cause." Only a person fully vested in eternal unformed matter could possibly see any value to this argument. Of course, eternity doesn't mean what it use to when we roll with LDS theology. We have all existed eternally as spirits, but we were born as literal children to a god that was eternally existing but was also born at a specific point in time within an eternal universe with no beginning and so no possible way to reach that specific point in time.
Since everything is paradox, then I guess maybe it cancels each other out in a very carefully balance system of paradox. Try not to think about anything too hard though because it throws the whole system out of balance and the entire house of cards comes crashing down. This, of course, is why Gecko chooses not to reason but instead simply accepts the house of paradox on "faith."
Is the problem with John and a closed heart, or is it Gecko's blind faith in something unreasonable and riddled with contradiction, not just paradox?
(http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/JournalOfDiscourses3&CISOPTR=9602&REC=6)
Instead of obfuscating, why doesn't Gecko just point to this? Just reading through the page 6 under "Character and Being of God' it unequivocally states that "There was never a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal with our Father in Heaven". This is an interesting read if you want to understand where Gecko is really coming from.
If beyond the bounds of that finite region over which the First Cause extends, there lies a finite region, and we admit that there is an infinite uncaused surrounding the finite caused; we implicitly discard the hypothesis of causation altogether. Thus it is impossible to consider the First Cause as finite. And if it cannot be finite it must be infinite…And if it cannot be finite it must be infinite, with nothing uncaused…Now, given no first cause, given there is broad agreement and confirmation that God exists, how illogical will you persist in being?
●We’ve been over this before when Puri and I demonstrated your false premises. However, before I do this one more time; I want to establish exactly why you suddenly felt the need to assert that there is no first cause. Drum roll please…it is because of Mormon, Kent Nielsen’s unequivocal statements in his article, “People on Other Worlds,” which I quoted for Timbo. It seems Timbo was unaware of the “fullness” or “meat” of Mormon theology. He, apparently, had only heard of the “milk” version of LDS teaching. Therefore, I went to lds.org and found a wonderful summation of many LDS core teachings including Kolob. Germane to your comment here is Nielsen’s statement:
Long before our God began his creations, he dwelt on a mortal world like ours, one of the creations that his Father had created for him and his brethren. He, with many of his brethren, was obedient to the principles of the eternal gospel. One among these, it is presumed, was a savior for them, and through him they obtained a resurrection and an exaltation on an eternal, celestial world. 8 Then they gained the power and godhood of their Father and were made heirs of all that he had, continuing his works and creating worlds of their own for their own posterity—the same as their Father had done before, and his Father, and his Father, and on and on.
●Okay, so here we have the LDS belief in an infinite regress into an infinite past without any initial causation whatsoever. Hence, we now have you attempting to defend the idea that the universe can exist and an infinite regress of gods can exist without a beginning or first cause. To coherently hold this position you must effectively overcome the following:
1. That which does not exist cannot be the cause of anything. (Aristotle) Or, nothing can cause its own existence. However, all LDS deities have “Fathers” that cause their existence. Therefore, all LDS deities begin.
2. Traversing an infinite regress is an essential impossibility just as counting to infinity is. (P.S. Have you counted to infinity yet?)
3. The Christian assertion which is: “That which has a beginning must have a cause.”
Okay, now for your assertions:
You wrote: If the First Cause is limited, that region beyond must have NO First Cause.
●This is a false premise. God is the First Cause and He is not limited. There is no “region beyond” Him; therefore, it needs no cause because it does not exist. There is no uncaused “region beyond” God.
You wrote: But if we acknowledge that there can be something uncaused, there is no reason to presume a cause for anything and EVERYTHING.
●This is a false premise. We cannot acknowledge that there is something uncaused because nothing that has a beginning can be uncaused. Everything in the universe had a beginning. Additionally, all LDS deities have a beginning so they are caused and cannot be God who is the First Cause and the only Necessary Being. In actuality, LDS deities don’t exist at all.
You wrote: If beyond the bounds of that finite region over which the First Cause extends, there lies a finite region, and we admit that there is an infinite uncaused surrounding the finite caused;…
●Rarely have I seen so many false premises strung together; but, here we have another. There cannot be a finite region (or infinite region) beyond the First Cause. First, a finite region beyond the First Cause would be caused by the First Cause because nothing can cause itself. Secondly, an infinite region cannot exist beyond the First Cause because it would have come into existence by the First Cause and would, therefore, be inherently finite. Thirdly, there is no “region” beyond the universe anyway. There is nothing. A region is something.
You wrote: we implicitly discard the hypothesis of causation altogether. Thus it is impossible to consider the First Cause as finite. And if it cannot be finite it must be infinite…And if it cannot be finite it must be infinite, with nothing uncaused…
●These, of course, are false conclusions based upon all of your false premises. Nothing can cause itself. Everything that has a beginning must have a cause because “that which does not exist cannot be the cause of anything.” All LDS so-called deities had a beginning and, therefore, form an infinite regress which cannot be crossed just as reaching an infinite cannot be done. What is not possible to consider is an infinite regress of LDS “Fathers.” Have you counted to infinity yet?
●Oh, and by the way, if we do as you suggest and “discard the hypothesis of causation” then we can consider it a pure fantasy that LDS deities were caused by their “Fathers.” I love the way you deny your own theology.
You wrote: Now, given no first cause, given there is broad agreement and confirmation that God exists, how illogical will you persist in being?
●Hmm…let’s see, you deny your own theological paradigm that LDS deities are caused by their “Fathers;” build a philosophical sophistry on a house of false premises and then call me “illogical.” Interesting…
It honestly hurts my head to think that Gecko believes his argument to have any consistency with reality. "There is infinite nothing so there must be no first cause." Only a person fully vested in eternal unformed matter could possibly see any value to this argument. Of course, eternity doesn't mean what it use to when we roll with LDS theology. We have all existed eternally as spirits, but we were born as literal children to a god that was eternally existing but was also born at a specific point in time within an eternal universe with no beginning and so no possible way to reach that specific point in time.
●Bravo, you said it so much better than I!
You also wrote: Since everything is paradox, then I guess maybe it cancels each other out in a very carefully balance system of paradox. Try not to think about anything too hard though because it throws the whole system out of balance and the entire house of cards comes crashing down. This, of course, is why Gecko chooses not to reason but instead simply accepts the house of paradox on "faith."
●Here’s the “kicker,” though; Mr. Gecko often claims that others are being illogical. Yet, when his premises or conclusions are shown to be false, he often starts to complain about people engaging in faithless rationality or “pagan” philosophy. Is there a pattern here?
For something else to exist independent of God contradicts the very definition and makes Him incomplete and thus limited. For other "uncaused causes" to exist, they would have to do so within a common structure of existence greater than either, which makes them in a sense caused / defined by the common structure. This is again a contradiction leaving you to say that they did not really qualify as multiple uncaused causes and that the common structure of existence better points to God, the single uncaused cause. If this were not so, other uncaused causes could never be known, even by God, since they would be entirely independent with no intersecting or mutual interaction and would thus for all practical purposes not exist.
●Brilliant reasoning!
…we may then look forward to using those powers to organize still other worlds from the unorganized matter that exists throughout boundless space. Creating other worlds, peopling them with our own eternal posterity, providing a savior for them, and making known to them the saving principles of the eternal gospel, that they may have the same experiences we are now having and be exalted with us in their turn—this is eternal life. 10 No wonder this possibility continues to fascinate and inspire Saints of all ages. This hope is what inspires members of the Church to seek eternal marriage and to seek in all things to be one with our Lord Jesus Christ, because we want to be with him and participate in all the marvelous things of which Paul the apostle said: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.”
●I wish to draw the reader’s attention to Mr. Nielsen’s words; particularly those that I have bold-faced. It is my thesis that the central unifying principle of Mormonism is “eternal marriage” with its concomitant rewards of “celestial” procreative relations (ad infinitum) and divine-like sovereignty over “worlds without end.” I believe that Mr. Nielsen’s summary comments confirm my thesis. Furthermore, I believe that the unifying principle of “eternal marriage” was engendered by Joseph Smith’s personal obsessions. In short, LDS theology is Joseph Smith writ large.
Doesn't this sound a lot like a familiar voice in Genesis?: "Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?"...."You certainly will not die! No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad."
Sure has an appeal to the Ego. Not hard to see the attraction.
One question, why are many of these apparently essential doctrines not found in the Book of Mormon or are contradicted in the book? Some examples are: Plurality of Gods, Plurality of wives doctrine, God is an exalted man, Celestial marriage, Men may become Gods, Three degrees of glory, Baptism for the dead, Eternal progression, The Aaronic Priesthood, Temple works of washings, anointing, endowments, sealing.
These doctrines are found in subsequent works (to the the Book of Mormon) like the Journal of Discourses and the Directives and Covenants and other church documents. These seem central to the religion but are left out or missing (and on some issues, directly contradictory) from The Book of Mormon which is the "most correct book of any on earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4:461).
One more question, given the LDS antipathy for traditional Christianity and these fundamental differences between LDS doctrine and Christianity, why does the LDS church fight so hard to identify themselves as Christian?
That is the crux of it. All the lies the Serpent tells in Gen 3 are revered as truth in LDS theology. Read the "Endowment" ceremony and you will find that Satan is painted in a very positive light for causing the fall. Gecko has even said the fall is a required part of the plan of salvation as laid out prior to creation and so it was better for Adam and Eve to sin than to live forever in the garden obeying the LDS god.
This, of course, makes the LDS god a liar and the author of evil. When I read my Bible this is not the God of the Bible, but rather it is Satan, the father of lies.
It certainly explains all the pentagrams on the LDS temples. No crosses but plenty of pentagrams ... Lots of honor for man and Satan, but God doesn't hardly do anything in the LDS version of creation ... Some interesting stuff if you ask me.
One question, why are many of these apparently essential doctrines not found in the Book of Mormon or are contradicted in the book? Some examples are: Plurality of Gods, Plurality of wives doctrine, God is an exalted man, Celestial marriage, Men may become Gods, Three degrees of glory, Baptism for the dead, Eternal progression, The Aaronic Priesthood, Temple works of washings, anointing, endowments, sealing.
●This is a very, very good question. One can speculate. What I have read is that Mormon theology evolved over its first few decades moving from a religion that was only partially divergent from orthodox Protestantism to one that was fundamentally different. Thomas G. Alexander, from BYU has published an insightful article titled "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to Progressive Theology.” He m