Posted on 02/13/2003 6:03:04 PM PST by scripter
Wrong. The very existence of that QUESTION can only come from someone who HAS to think in terms of "beginning, middle, and end."
Assertion without proof, and even if proven does not invalidate statement.
Our minds do not readily accept the concept of "eternity" or "infinity."
Even when we can "define" the words, or the mathematical constructs, most of us can't deal with something that has no beginning, middle and end.
The Cartesian plane, the Fourier series representation of a square wave, the parabola, hyperbolic functions, we can deal with the concept quite well thank you.
Matter and energy are because they always WERE and they always WILL BE. Period.
This cannot be proven, but it does by virtue of the fact that an answer was attempted, prove my original point.
I was hoping there were simple answers to my statements in post 15, and that it wouldn't take all night. But focus is good.
Here goes Question one:
(This particular) "Christian" concept of God makes no mention of Jesus Christ. Are we to assume that the God it discusses is Jesus Christ or someone/thing else?
Very good question, let us hold on to it for a bit, as i believe that you already know the answer
Your statement confuses me somewhat. First you say that you have no problem with a God who works within natural laws, then you admit that God "probably" could have created Ex Nhilo if He had wanted to.
Perhaps God made a choice between the two. Just because he "could have" done it a certain way, doesn't mean he actually did it that way.
It is in the above statement that you have answered your own question. How could have God possibly made a choice between the two if matter/energy had already existed? At least in your own thinking you are presuming that God existed before matter/energy. God is by definition eternal. You have in fact, demonstrated the difficulty of presuming anything else.
If you read the article carefully you will notice that the author states the following: "(respecting His intrinsic divine nature we are not considering the Incarnation of the Son of God here)"
Thus the article is not an article on the trinitarian doctrine, but on the intrinsic nature of God, i.e, the intrinsic nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as One God.
Thus it is safe to assume that when the author is talking about the nature of God he is speaking of the whole triune nature of God and not of the individual natures of the persons of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
You may or may not be aware that the Greek of Colossians 1:16-17 actually begins the Sentence at verse nine, and ends the sentence at verse 20. Try to diagram that sentence, and i suspect that you would end up with something that looks as if it was the mechanical drawing of the "Starship Enterprise".
If you wish, i could do a word-for-word translation, but i warn you, it would be quite time consuming and lengthy, involving explanation of Greek grammar, syntax, and idiom.
I merely accepted his challenge, and took a stab at it.
English prepositions are extremely confusing to non-native speakers. (e.g. what's the difference between "in," "on," and "at"?) It's not the big words that confuse, it's the little ones.
No direct translation from Greek is needed. I'm still trying to make sense of the English.
Thanks for your pleasantness. I enjoy a good debate, and have sparred with the best of them here on the Religious Forum. It's good to have someone who can deal with my inquisitiveness without becoming defensive. The only way I can learn new things is to continue to ask tough questions. Hope you don't mind.
i must confess that i never did give much thought to the use of English prepositions, perhaps that is because of the fact that i am a native English speaker, and one rarely questions the structure of one's own language. i am quite acutely aware of the use of prepositons in the Greek, since it is not a native language to me (although i read and write it fluently).
Why does the author claim that this is what we believe? Talk about setting up a strawman and knocking it down!
If they cannot show it from the LDS Scriptures, they should not pretend it is what we believe.
>> CHRISTIAN MORMON
These headings are incorrect. They should read "Other Christians" and "Latter-Day Saints", since Latter-Day Saints are Christians no matter how many times others deny it.
This does not bode well for the rest of the article. Is this table part of the article? Written by the same authors? (I ask because the table follows the footnotes.)
I'll try to put it in simple terms.
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. "Before". Or. "After". When. You. Are. Speaking. Of. Eternity.
The. Question. You. Pose. Is. Therefore. Meaningless.
God. Has. Always. Existed.
We. Have. Always. Existed.
Time. Only. Is. Measured. To. Man. Remember?
Has Mormon scripture or doctrine ever changed?
These headings are incorrect. They should read "Other Christians" and "Latter-Day Saints", since Latter-Day Saints are Christians no matter how many times others deny it.
The headings are fine as they are. Christians, by definition, are followers of the Christ of the New Testament, Jesus - the Son of God. Mormons have redefined the God and Christ of the Bible and follow a false god. By definition, Mormons are not Christians as defined in the Bible.
Wrong. In turn, assertion of a child who when he doesn't like the answer, will ask the question again. And again.
It's too bad that you can't conceive of the inconceivable. Too bad that you can't realize there are things that, in this stage of your existence, it is impossible for you to realize.
Right now, you are limited. You have ONLY your experience in mortality, in time and space, to draw from, so you try to use that as a measuring-stick for everything else.
If you will read up on it you will find that modern physics tells us that at the subatomic level, the universe gets very, very, very strange. It is nearly inexplicable at the level of the average man's understanding. Even concepts such as time and location in space seem to have no meaning.
The elements are eternal. They just ARE, and the notion of "beginning, middle, end" ultimately have no bearing on the way the universe operates.
Too bad you can't at least admit that there is something to that notion.
Neither can the existence of God, at least to the extent of consensus.
No, and the lies that you people tell about them have stayed pretty consistent as well.
Has Mormon scripture or doctrine ever changed?Mormon Illbay says
No, and the lies that you people tell about them have stayed pretty consistent as well.In a week I've seen you make some unupportable statements and can't help if wondering, is this just another? To what specific lies are you referring.
Now believe me Illbay this is an honest question. If we have always existed as you say, then we were not only "in the beginning with God" but it would appear from your statement that we, like God the Father, were in existence even before the beginning.
Now my understanding is that the LDS Church believes that each person on this earth is literally a spirit child of God the Father -- that is the purpose of Celestial Marriage so that the Temple endowed married couple can procreate and have spirit children in eternity and then populate their own planet with their own "Children of God" when they become exalted to the position of "God."
Now if my premise is wrong correct me, but that is what I was taught and that is what I understand that those who actually believe in the LDS Gospel believe.
Now with that in mind could you explain this to me:
If we always existed, just like God the Father, then how could it be that we were his "spirit Children" in the pre-existence. What is the purpose of Celestial Marriage and how can you have spirit children that have already existed from all eternity?
It makes no sense. Help me out here Illbay.
When we say "in the beginning" we do not mean "at the beginning of eternity," do we?
I think even you might admit that. If we have an "eternal soul," could that soul have a beginning? No.
It's like the difference in geometry between a "line" and a "ray." The "ray" has a beginning point but no end point. A "line" has no beginning or end.
We are not "rays," we are "lines."
Now, there was a "time" when we did not exist as spirit creatures of God. We had to be spiritually "created" (that is to say, "organized") before we were PHYSICALLY organized.
That is why we Latter-Day Saints say that we are "spirit children of God." He, God, took of the "stuff" that was there--we call it "intelligence"--and he organized it, gave it "spirit" form. In that sense we are ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY creatures of God. Without His power we would NOT have been created, or organized, in the Spirit. Likewise, we would not have the opportunity to gain physical bodies, which he has, and live in mortality, then immortality.
Consider the ramifications of the Resurrection. Why was it necessary for Christ to be resurrected? Why must WE be resurrected, if having physical bodies means nothing?
I hope you can see the implications of this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.