Question for BrianH

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Brian,

Using your premise and ***umptions for the Triune God, when did God create the law of cause and affect?

Or did He even create that law?

[BrianH]

Using your premise and ***umptions for the Triune God, when did God create the law of cause and affect?

Or did He even create that law?

Lets begin by correcting your terms. The doctrine of the trinity is not an "***umption". It is the normative systematic theology of God in Christianity and is based on the fact that the Bible is explicit in telling us that there is, was and forever will be only ONE God AND the fact that the Bible identifies three (and only three) persons as God.

Now, in answer to your question I will tell you what I told you the last time you asked: God created the laws of the universe when he created the universe.

-BH

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Now, in answer to your question I will tell you what I told you the last time you asked: God created the laws of the universe when he created the universe.

-BH

So God created the law of cause and affect without using the law of cause and affect to do so?

[BrianH]

BH>>Now, in answer to your question I will tell you what I told you the last time you asked: God created the laws of the universe when he created the universe.
F>So God created the law of cause and affect without using the law of cause and affect to do so?

Yes. That is correct. The laws that govern the physical universe are only binding on the physical universe. Furthermore they cannot be said to have existed before the universe itself came into existence because the laws themselves are dependent on the things they govern. For example, there would be no laws of gravity if there was no m*** or space. There can be no laws of thermodynamics if there is no energy.

This will be hard for you to understand, because you think that God is a THING, a corporeal object located in space and time (on or near some celestial body called "Kolob"). The truth is, God - the one and only TRUE God, the God of the Bible- is NOT confined to the physical universe. He CREATED it.

-BH

.

[akaSeerone]

Fig.....you do realize it was the Pharisees that liked to play word games with Jesus?

Why are you here playing word games?

The laws of the universe came about because God created the universe. God spoke and the universe came into existence. The laws are a by product of the universe coming into existence.

Another example of this principle if found in:

Isaiah 45:6-7

6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Darkness is the by product of God making/creating light.

Evil is the by product of God making/creating peace.

Andy

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Yes. That is correct. The laws that govern the physical universe are only binding on the physical universe. Furthermore they cannot be said to have existed before the universe itself came into existence because the laws themselves are dependent on the things they govern. For example, there would be no laws of gravity if there was no m*** or space. There can be no laws of thermodynamics if there is no energy.

This will be hard for you to understand, because you think that God is a THING, a corporeal object located in space and time (on or near some celestial body called "Kolob"). The truth is, God - the one and only TRUE God, the God of the Bible- is NOT confined to the physical universe. He CREATED it.

-BH

.

So, according to you, the law of "cause and affect" did not come about because of "cause and affect".

I understand you now, Brian.

[Bat-Man]

So, according to you, the law of "cause and affect" did not come about because of "cause and affect"?
Why ask him again?

He's already told you what he thinks, and I think you should just run with that as he does when we share what we think with him.

Obviously, according to what BrianH has already said, BrianH doesn't consider God to be the "law" or the "cause" in your "law of cause and effect" scenario.

I think we can now dismiss his comments without any further ado.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

The laws of the universe came about because God created the universe. God spoke and the universe came into existence. The laws are a by product of the universe coming into existence.

If God spoke and then came "being", it seems that God knew about the law of cause and affect before everything came into being.

When you start talking about 'this came "because" of that', you are talking about cause and affect. There cannot be a "first cause" unless there is already in place a law of cause and affect.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Why ask him again?

He's already told you what he thinks, and I think you should just run with that as he does when we share what we think with him.

Obviously, according to what BrianH has already said, BrianH doesn't consider God to be the "cause" in your "cause and effect" scenario.

I think we can now dismiss his comments without any further ado.

Yea, I feel like I'm trying to speak with someone from another planet who doesn't even hold basic "existence" in common with me. It's futile.

[Bat-Man]

If God spoke and then came "being", it seems that God knew about the law of cause and affect before everything came into being.

When you start talking about 'this came "because" of that', you are talking about cause and affect. There cannot be a "first cause" unless there is already in place a law of cause and affect.
That is true, Fig, but getting someone like Andy to accept that as truth is a pretty big and almost impossible challenge, don't you think ?

But, hey, if you feel like going for it, just go for it.

Maybe today is your day to be "lucky".

Do you feel lucky today ?

Well, do ya ?

[BrianH]

So, according to you, the law of "cause and affect" did not come about because of "cause and affect".

...Only the cause of God creating it. God himself is uncaused and he is the cause of the existence of the universe, according to the Bible. By contrast, the very EXISTENCE of the theoretical (and apparently imaginary) Mormon "God" is dependant upon the universe for his existence.



I understand you now, Brian.
The question is, do you understand the truth before you reject it?

-BH

.

[MacG]

If God spoke and then came "being", it seems that God knew about the law of cause and affect before everything came into being.

When you start talking about 'this came "because" of that', you are talking about cause and affect. There cannot be a "first cause" unless there is already in place a law of cause and affect.

It's Cause and Effect. A cause of the fire was a gas leak, the effect was burning down the house and the occupants were affected in adverse ways.

macg

[akaSeerone]

God spoke and things were.....there had to be a beginning for everything God created.....even "cause and effect."

Reminds me of .....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5sSEkZ86ts

You are trying to play word games and this Christian forum is not going to let you non Christians get away with that. Amen

The bottom line here is GOD CREATED EX NIHILO, ....once again proving Smith lied and mormonis false.

Andy

[nrajeff]

Andrew, why did God have to SPEAK in order to create stuff out of nothing? Why couldn't He just THINK it into existence? Who was there to hear Him speak anyhow? Is it logical to speak when there is no one but yourself to hear it?

[akaSeerone]

Why do you continually try to lower God by limiting Him to mankind in all our weakness and being created beings?

Jesus gave us a hint to your question......John 6:63

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 6:63 (The Message)

61-65 Jesus sensed that his disciples were having a hard time with this and said, "Does this throw you completely? What would happen if you saw the Son of Man ascending to where he came from? The Spirit can make life. Sheer muscle and willpower don't make anything happen. Every word I've spoken to you is a Spirit-word, and so it is life-making. But some of you are resisting, refusing to have any part in this." (Jesus knew from the start that some weren't going to risk themselves with him. He knew also who would betray him.) He went on to say, "This is why I told you earlier that no one is capable of coming to me on his own. You get to me only as a gift from the Father."

Isaiah 55:10-11 (King James Version)

10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Isaiah 55:10-11 (The Message)

8-11 "I don't think the way you think.
The way you work isn't the way I work."
God's Decree.
"For as the sky soars high above earth,
so the way I work surp***es the way you work,
and the way I think is beyond the way you think.
Just as rain and snow descend from the skies
and don't go back until they've watered the earth,
Doing their work of making things grow and blossom,
producing seed for farmers and food for the hungry,
So will the words that come out of my mouth
not come back empty-handed.
They'll do the work I sent them to do,
they'll complete the ***ignment I gave them.

I am satisfied with just believing the Bible and do not question God in such trivial matters....The Bible says God spoke and things were.....to me that is totally mind boggling and awesome. Amen

Andy

[nrajeff]

I agree that your theology is mind-boggling.

[Tatian]

When you can't refute the scriptures then attack the person.

[James Banta]

I agree that your theology is mind-boggling.



I saw no personal theology there just quotes from the scripture.. You seem to belittle it. I really understand that you can't get your mind around such teaching.. It requires the Holy Spirit to come to an understanding of such things. IHS jim

[akaSeerone]

I gave you scripture to answer the question and that is all you have to say!

I take it you did not even read or consider the Scripture I gave because you did not refute any of it. How could you...it is the Truth.

Troll, troll, troll yourself all over the net.....

God will say to you, did I know you, nyet!

Andy

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

...Only the cause of God creating it. God himself is uncaused and he is the cause of the existence of the universe, according to the Bible.

.

How could God be the cause of anything if the natural law of cause and affect isn't eternal?

[akaSeerone]

How could God be the cause of anything if the natural law of cause and affect isn't eternal?
One of the ways I see it Fig, is that in Heaven the physical laws we are limited to here will not exist and things will be very different and exciting there.

Jesus gave us an insight into that by walking on water, multiplying the bread and fish, calling Lazarus out of the grave etc.

the law of cause and effect was created when this realm was spoke into existence and said law helps us understand our universe.

Andy

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

One of the ways I see it Fig, is that in Heaven the physical laws we are limited to here will not exist and things will be very different and exciting there.

Jesus gave us an insight into that by walking on water, multiplying the bread and fish, calling Lazarus out of the grave etc.

the law of cause and effect was created when this realm was spoke into existence and said law helps us understand our universe.

Andy

So there is no law of cause and effect in God's realm?

[akaSeerone]

So there is no law of cause and effect in God's realm?
You are starting to sound like a very scratched broken record Fig.

What is the point with this cause and effect?



Andy

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

You are starting to sound like a very scratched broken record Fig.

What is the point with this cause and effect?

Andy

Simple. I believe that the law of "cause and effect" is not an EFFECT, (nor it is an AFFECT) of some first cause.

[BrianH]

How could God be the cause of anything if the natural law of cause and affect isn't eternal?

First of all, the law of cause and effect is what we observe in the physical universe which God created and thereby exhibited his own will and nature as creator. It is not evident in any form OUTSIDE or BEFORE the physical universe. God was not abiding by a law supposedly higher than himself but exhibiting the truth of his own nature as the actual creator. Secondly, if there was no physical universe, the laws that govern it would not only be impossible, but unnecessary. The laws of gravity, for example cannot even possibly exist apart from m***, space and time. Thirdly, the Mormon "God", being by definition only a "demigod" - an exalted creatrue, is necessarily subject to the laws of the physical universe. This means he is lying when he claims to be the creator and master of those laws.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

First of all, the law of cause and effect is what we observe in the physical universe which God created and thereby exhibited his own will and nature as creator. It is not evident in any form OUTSIDE or BEFORE the physical universe.

How do you know? Have you observed this phenomenon personally? Or has anyone?



God was not abiding by a law supposedly higher than himself but exhibiting the truth of his own nature as the actual creator.

What I think you are trying to say is that you believe God is a law unto himself. And that he doesn't follow any rules or principles that exist independently of his first creating those rules or principles--as they simply don't exist.

So then you will probably say that God IS the very law and principle of Cause and Effect.



Secondly, if there was no physical universe, the laws that govern it would not only be impossible, but unnecessary. The laws of gravity, for example cannot even possibly exist apart from m***, space and time.

Actually, it is the "EFFECT" of gravity which cannot exist w/o m***, space, time, etc. The law exists whether or not you have the elements in place to implement the law. The existence of natural law is not dependent upon obeyers of that law to abide by it.

Otherwise, you could say that God is not God unless there are beings in existence who worship and acknowledge Him as such.

Your third point did not deserve consideration. :(

[BrianH]

How do you know? Have you observed this phenomenon personally? Or has anyone?
Is emperical observation the only means of achieving knowledge, Fig?


What I think you are trying to say is that you believe God is a law unto himself. And that he doesn't follow any rules or principles that exist independently of his first creating those rules or principles--as they simply don't exist.

So then you will probably say that God IS the very law and principle of Cause and Effect.

Straw man. No what I am saying is what I said: God was not abiding by a law supposedly higher than himself but exhibiting the truth of his own nature as the actual creator. Being outside time and space before creating them, he is not bound by the laws of the physical universe IN time and space. That is the MORMON "God" who is the creature living in outer space, not the TRUE God.


Actually, it is the "EFFECT" of gravity which cannot exist w/o m***, space, time, etc. The law exists whether or not you have the elements in place to implement the law. The existence of natural law is not dependent upon obeyers of that law to abide by it.
Wrong agian. While indeed the effect of gravity cannot exist with no m*** or space or time, that is BECAUSE there can be no gravity. Now if you would like to contest that observation, all you have to do is explain how gravity can exist outside time and space and where there is no m***. Go ahead, Fig ...SHOW ME that the laws of gravity somehow exist where there is no physical reality. I can hardly wait.


Otherwise, you could say that God is not God unless there are beings in existence who worship and acknowledge Him as such.

No YOU could say that. I could not. YOU are the one who's whole religion is based on imagination, not me.


Your third point did not deserve consideration

Just keep running, Fig. It shows us that even YOU know you have no actual answers.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Is emperical observation the only means of achieving knowledge, Fig?

You tell me.



Straw man. No what I am saying is what I said: God was not abiding by a law supposedly higher than himself but exhibiting the truth of his own nature as the actual creator. Being outside time and space before creating them, he is not bound by the laws of the physical universe IN time and space. That is the MORMON "God" who is the creature living in outer space, not the TRUE God.

Like I said. For you, God is therefore a law unto himself. Either that or God is lawless in his own realm.

And who says that the law of "Cause and Effect" is somehow bound to our physical existence, and reaches no where else? Is this in the Bible? Your word isn't good enough to go on.



Wrong agian. While indeed the effect of gravity cannot exist with no m*** or space or time, that is BECAUSE there can be no gravity.

But there CAN BE gravity as well as gravity's effect IF m*** is present.

The presence of the element does not determine the truth or existence of the principle. The principle and law exist independent of the elements affected by it.

So according to you, there is no law unless there are elements in existence to obey that law. That's a strawman if ever there was one. I'll even **** that one down, if it doesn't fall over on its own, first.



Now if you would like to contest that observation, all you have to do is explain how gravity can exist outside time and space and where there is no m***. Go ahead, Fig ...SHOW ME that the laws of gravity somehow exist where there is no physical reality. I can hardly wait.

The principle and law still exist but are simply inactive until you introduce the elements, the law and principle show themselves.

If a tree falls in the forest, it makes no sound because Brian did not hear it? :rolleyes:

Maybe if you cover your eyes, Brian, then your mommy won't be able to see you. :D

[BrianH]

BH>>Is emperical observation the only means of achieving knowledge, Fig?

F>You tell me.

The answer is no. That is why your question was moot.


BH>>Straw man. No what I am saying is what I said: God was not abiding by a law supposedly higher than himself but exhibiting the truth of his own nature as the actual creator. Being outside time and space before creating them, he is not bound by the laws of the physical universe IN time and space. That is the MORMON "God" who is the creature living in outer space, not the TRUE God.

F>Like I said. For you, God is therefore a law unto himself. Either that or God is lawless in his own realm.

No, not "for me". For real. The typical, LDS attempt to relativize even the most obvious truths is evdient in your rhetoric. You cannot deal with reality, Fig. And REALITY is pretty darn obvious right here. The LDS "God" is indeed subject to the laws of the physical universe. His very existence is dependent on the physical world. By contrast the God of the Bible CREATED the physical world and therefore cannot be dependent upon it for his existence. Since the God of the Bible says that he alone is the ONLY God there is, was or ever will be that meanst the Mormon God is imaginary, at best.


And who says that the law of "Cause and Effect" is somehow bound to our physical existence, and reaches no where else? Is this in the Bible? Your word isn't good enough to go on.

Show me evidence or a reason to think that the laws of cause and effect exist OUTSIDE physical reality.


BH>>Wrong agian. While indeed the effect of gravity cannot exist with no m*** or space or time, that is BECAUSE there can be no gravity.

F>But there CAN BE gravity as well as gravity's effect IF m*** is present.

Which is what I said and you denied and you are now admitting. Sheeesh, Fig. Try to keep up here will ya? Oh and BTW, for gravity to exist, there must ALSO be space and time. Gravity cannot exist without them. BY DEFINITION gravity is a property of the PHYSICAL universe Fig. It only effects PHYSICAL things (bodies of m***). The real God is not a THING subject to the law of gravity. Only the Mormon "God" is.


The presence of the element does not determine the truth or existence of the principle. The principle and law exist independent of the elements affected by it.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Gravity is GENERATED by m***, Fig. No m*** = no POSSIBILITY of gravity. No gravity means there are no laws of gravity because there is nothing for those laws to govern.



So according to you, there is no law unless there are elements in existence to obey that law. That's a strawman if ever there was one. I'll even **** that one down, if it doesn't fall over on its own, first.

First of all YOU are the one making the statement so if there is a straw man its YOURS. Secondly, unless you can provide me with a reason to think that the laws of gravity exist APART from the physical elements that CAUSE those laws to exist and even give them their purpose, you will have a point. Short of an explanation of how gravity operates WITHOUT any m*** or space or time, you will once again have only exhibited your ignoranc e.



BH>>Now if you would like to contest that observation, all you have to do is explain how gravity can exist outside time and space and where there is no m***. Go ahead, Fig ...SHOW ME that the laws of gravity somehow exist where there is no physical reality. I can hardly wait.

F>The principle and law still exist but are simply inactive until you introduce the elements, the law and principle show themselves.

That is not an explanation. Its just another empty ***ertion. Please back up your claims by EXPLAINING HOW gravity exists and operates outside the physical universe.


If a tree falls in the forest, it makes no sound because Brian did not hear it?

Irrelevant. Red herring.


Maybe if you cover your eyes, Brian, then your mommy won't be able to see you.
What's the matter Fig ...? Can't support your position again, so all you can do is exhibit your adolescent taunting?

Explain how gravity works outside of time and space, Fig.

Go ahead and dodge that AGAIN. I wanna see you DANCE, Mormon.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Gravity is GENERATED by m***, Fig. No m*** = no POSSIBILITY of gravity. No gravity means there are no laws of gravity because there is nothing for those laws to govern.

.

The law and principle of gravity is not invented or produced by the existence of m***. But the effect of that law and principle IS evidenced by the existence of m***.

See the difference yet?

Just like the law of cause and affect was not generated by a cause.

The physical world is patterned after the spiritual. The laws that act upon the physical elements are in place before the physical elements appear to be acted upon. The same is true with the spiritual world.

[BrianH]

Again it is evident that you have no idea what you are talking about. And when challenged to defend your claim, all you do is repeat it. You have failed three times now to explain your otherwise empty ***ertion. A cl*** in basic high school physics would have informed you that gravity does not exist without m*** and m*** only exists in space and time.

Were there no m***, no space no time, there would be no gravity and therefore no laws of gravity could be derived. At that point the "principle" of gravity could ONLY exist in in theory - not in reality.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Were there no m***, no space no time, there would be no gravity and therefore no laws of gravity could be derived. At that point the "principle" of gravity could ONLY exist in in theory - not in reality.

The principle of gravity exists before the elements are introduced. And whether it is in theory or not is irrelevant. It exists, and it is truth, and it is a real principle. You don't need to light a match to a gasoline spill to create the principle of cause and effect.

You only need to do that to observe effects of the principle that already is in place.

[BrianH]

The principle of gravity exists before the elements are introduced.

Just repeating your ***ertion over and over again does not amount to an explanation, Fig.


And whether it is in theory or not is irrelevant.

EXACTLY my point. Therefore your "theory" that gravity and its laws exist outside of physical reality is irrelevant.


It exists, and it is truth, and it is a real principle.
Prove it.


You don't need to light a match to a gasoline spill to create the principle of cause and effect.
Irrelevant.

You only need to do that to observe effects of the principle that already is in place.

I I know that you Mormons are somehow conditioned to think that just repeating somehting over and over again makes it true. The challenge before you is to SHOW me that the laws of gravity exist apart from gravity, Fig. Don't just repeat your claim, again SHOW ME why anyone should think your claim is TRUE.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I I know that you Mormons are somehow conditioned to think that just repeating somehting over and over again makes it true. The challenge before you is to SHOW me that the laws of gravity exist apart from gravity, Fig. Don't just repeat your claim, again SHOW ME why anyone should think your claim is TRUE.

-BH

.

And the principle of gravity is not the CAUSE of gravity. The principle of gravity does not govern the CAUSE of gravity.

The "principle" and "law" of gravity governs the effects of gravity. And not the other way around.

The principle and laws of gravity were in place long before God set the sun and the earth and the moon into motion.

This all brings us back to the topic at hand. That the principle of "Cause and Effect" was in place well before the appearance of any effects.

Gotta hand it to you Brian. You are consistent. For you nothing even exists whether in principle, or in law, or in element until there is observable evidence.

[BrianH]

And the principle of gravity is not the CAUSE of gravity. The principle of gravity does not govern the CAUSE of gravity.

Again, exactly MY point! Glad you are continuing to come around.


The "principle" and "law" of gravity governs the effects of gravity. And not the other way around.

Wrong. If there was no gravity there could be no laws of gravity, Fig. Just ***erting the contrary does not explain your position. By contrast I need only point out the FACT that were there no m***, no time and no space, gravity would be impossible, it would not exist and therefore could not even possibly exert any of the force from which the laws of gravity are derived.


The principle and laws of gravity were in place long before God set the sun and the earth and the moon into motion.

But not before matter and time and space existed. Gravity is the RESULT of the effect that matter has on space. That effect is not limited to the earth and the moon.


This all brings us back to the topic at hand. That the principle of "Cause and Effect" was in place well before the appearance of any effects.

It brings us nowhere Fig. Look ...just ***erting your position is not an explanation of your position. Give me a REASON to think that the laws derived from the properties of the physical universe actually existed BEFORE the physical universe existed. Just repeating your claim over and over again only shows that you are not thinking.


Gotta hand it to you Brian. You are consistent. For you nothing even exists whether in principle, or in law, or in element until there is observable evidence.

Gotta hand it to you Fig. You are consistent. Apparently you can do is misrepresent what I am saying while consistently failing to support your own claims.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Give me a REASON to think that the laws derived from the properties of the physical universe actually existed BEFORE the physical universe existed. Just repeating your claim over and over again only shows that you are not thinking.

You actually need me to explain to you why the principle of cause and effect needed to be in place for God to cause any effects to take place?

How 'bout you explain to me how God could be the cause of a first effect if the principle and law of cause and effect did NOT exist.

[BrianH]

You actually need me to explain to you why the principle of cause and effect needed to be in place for God to cause any effects to take place?


Yes. That is your position here ...is it not? I am asking you AGAIN, to please explain WHY anyone should think your claim is true. Please do not pretend to explain it by just REPEATING it again. I already know what your claim is. I am asking you to explain why anyone should think it is actually correct.


How 'bout you explain to me how God could be the cause of a first effect if the principle and law of cause and effect did NOT exist.

I already did. Here, I will do it again. Let me explain it this way: This is like the Euthephro dilemma. Good is not "good" because God said it is, nor is it "good" because it is superior to God. The biblical reality is that goodness is in God's own nature and it begins with who God IS. In the same way, it is God's very nature to be orderly and order begins with God. Thus the entire creation reflects his nature and therefore abides by the laws he created. When God creates, he shows us who and what he is. The laws of nature (including cause and effect) only existed in the mind of God before he created them and are expressions of the mind of God after he created them. But those laws are only observable by creatures like us since they are derived from the FACTS of creation AFTER the creation of the universe (which includes creatures, BTW).

Now that I have answered your question twice, when are you gonna finally answer my question. YOU say that the laws governing the physical universe actually existed in the universe BEFORE the universe itself existed. Why should anyone think that?

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

You actually need me to explain to you why the principle of cause and effect needed to be in place for God to cause any effects to take place?

Yes. That is your position here ...is it not? I am asking you AGAIN, to please explain WHY anyone should think your claim is true. Please do not pretend to explain it by just REPEATING it again. I already know what your claim is. I am asking you to explain why anyone should think it is actually correct.

When God says to the elements "do this" they obey. They do so in an orderly fashion not because they are puppets, but because the elements hear his voice and obey. The water and storm obeyed Jesus when it was stilled, or when he walked upon the water. It is by faith that Jesus walked on water and calmed the storm. It is also by faith that the worlds are created--because God says "do this" the cause... and the elements obey "the effect." If the elements were not to be affected by the cause, there would have been no creation, and nothing would exist. Some laws of obedience, God establishes for us. But some natural laws have been established for eternity. Even IF the law of cause and effect could have been first created by God, God would be using that very law to create that very law, which is a circular redundancy.

God knows these natural laws and abides by them, and that is what gives him is power. Jesus is the same. It is not a matter of a law being above God, it is a matter of God understanding the law, and higher laws still, until he knows them all, and has mastered them all.

It is like a caveman being shown electricity for the first time. The caveman gets down and begins to worship another man who understands that electricity. But that man is not a god, he is just one who understands the laws of electricity. There are higher laws than that which govern electricity--laws which you nor I know about. God knows them all and he can even overcome some lower laws if he wants by understanding higher laws.



I already did. Here, I will do it again. Let me explain it this way: This is like the Euthephro dilemma. Good is not "good" because God said it is, nor is it "good" because it is superior to God. The biblical reality is that goodness is in God's own nature and it begins with who God IS. In the same way, it is God's very nature to be orderly and order begins with God. Thus the entire creation reflects his nature and therefore abides by the laws he created. When God creates, he shows us who and what he is. The laws of nature (including cause and effect) only existed in the mind of God before he created them and are expressions of the mind of God after he created them. But those laws are only observable by creatures like us since they are derived from the FACTS of creation AFTER the creation of the universe (which includes creatures, BTW).

.

Thanks for explaining your point. I already wrote why I disagree.

[BrianH]

When God says to the elements "do this" they obey.They do so in an orderly fashion not because they are puppets, but because the elements hear his voice and obey.

So you think that elements are conscious beings??


God knows these natural laws and abides by them, and that is what gives him is power. Jesus is the same. It is not a matter of a law being above God, it is a matter of God understanding the law, and higher laws still, until he knows them all, and has mastered them all.

I agree that God knows the laws of nature. The Mormon "God" is indeed subject to laws that are higher than himself and which he had to learn about. The Mormon "God" is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible knows the laws, principles and forces of nature because he CREATED them. Col 2:16-17 is explicit on this simple matter:


For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Its your speculations vs. the word of God, Fig.

I have every reason to believe God and no reason to believe you.

-BH

.

[Russianwolfe]

So you think that elements are conscious beings??
Col 2:16-17 is explicit on this simple matter:


For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.



Why when Paul said this does he only mention things that have no being? If he meant to say that God created man, why didn't he list that as well. Seems that if you examine this in context with the whole verse, then the omission of man and any other living thing becames a big hole in the argument that Paul meant to include man. Maybe Paul didn't mean man or any living thing. Even though God did create them, it looks like if you use this to say that God created man, that is not what Paul was saying. Something to think about.

Marvin

[BrianH]

Why when Paul said this does he only mention things that have no being?
He says "all things were created by him" and explains that means all things in heaven and on earth, all visible and invisible things, all thrones and principlaities (authority and jurisdiction), all powers ...ALL THINGS were created by him and for him and he existed before "ALL THINGS" and it is by HIM that they all consist. What part of ALL THINGS do you not understand? How much more explicit does God need to be?


If he meant to say that God created man, why didn't he list that as well.
He did. All things means ALL things. And if you think he is lying for saying that God created man, go ahead and make your case.


Seems that if you examine this in context with the whole verse, then the omission of man and any other living thing becames a big hole in the argument that Paul meant to include man. Maybe Paul didn't mean man or any living thing.

A "living thing" is a thing by definition, Marvin and living things would be included by anyone who knows how to read as a subset of the category of "things" and the Bible is explicit in tellin you in perfectly understandable and unequivocal terms that God created "ALL THINGS". Are men not on earth? Are they not visible?


Maybe Paul didn't mean man or any living thing. Even though God did create them, it looks like if you use this to say that God created man, that is not what Paul was saying.
So you leap from "maybe" Paul didn't mean man or any living thing to "that is not what Paul was saying" in one sentence. That's quite a leap! Suppose you back up and actually show me why we should think that Paul was NOT talking about mankind. Your mere conjecture is insufficient as support for ITSELF.

Meanwhile, the context here is the book of Colosians in whcih Paul is writing to REFUTE the proto-gnosticism (YOUR theological ancestors) that was developing there at the time. The language he uses here is the same kind of language that the gnostics used to describe the hierarchies of deity and natural powers that they worshipped. That INCLUDED "Gods" and angels and men and natural forces.

When Paul says "ALL things", I see no reason to think he means "SOME things". Now ...if you would like to dispute that, suppose you begin by telling me what Paul SHOULD HAVE said in order to convey the idea of "ALL things" since the words "ALL things" seem indadequate to that task for you.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

So you think that elements are conscious beings??

Who was Jesus speaking to when he said "Peace, be still"?

I think they hear and obey his voice. In order for that, I think there needs to be some level of intelligence in the elements.

[BrianH]

BH>>So you think that elements are conscious beings??

F>Who was Jesus speaking to when he said "Peace, be still"?

I think they hear and obey his voice. In order for that, I think there needs to be some level of intelligence in the elements.

Wow ...That's amazing. So then, are ALL (or most) Mormons pantheists or animists like you?

-BH

.

[akaSeerone]

Who was Jesus speaking to when he said "Peace, be still"?

I think they hear and obey his voice. In order for that, I think there needs to be some level of intelligence in the elements.
Jesus said.....

John 6:63

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

He simply has power over matter.

After all he created it from nothing by just speaking it into existence.

Andy

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Wow ...That's amazing. So then, are ALL (or most) Mormons pantheists or animists like you?

-BH

.

I'm neither of those.

But you can ask each Mormon you meet, if you like, what they believe.

Thanks.

[Father_JD]

Who was Jesus speaking to when he said "Peace, be still"?

I think they hear and obey his voice. In order for that, I think there needs to be some level of intelligence in the elements.

Wow. You really are a pantheist of some kind to believe this utter nonsense, Fig.

So when in the Psalms it says, "The trees of the fields will clap their hands", the trees must have intelligence and "will" to applaud, huh? :D

[BrianH]

I'm neither of those.

You most certainly are IF you really believe that natural elements (like water) have an innate intelligence. And you just represented that you DO so believe.

I knew you guys were supers***ious, but this takes the cake!

-BH

.

[nrajeff]

You most certainly are IF you really believe that natural elements (like water) have an innate intelligence.

--If such objects in nature have no intelligence, then how can you call LDS people "as dumb as a rock" ? :D

[BrianH]

--If such objects in nature have no intelligence, then how can you call LDS people "as dumb as a rock" ?

I didn't. But ...actually THINK about your question, Jeff ...does it not have as its premise that objects in nature have no intelligence? If I thought you Mormoids were dumb as a rock wouldn't that at least be consistent with that premise?

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Wow. You really are a pantheist of some kind to believe this utter nonsense, Fig.

So when in the Psalms it says, "The trees of the fields will clap their hands", the trees must have intelligence and "will" to applaud, huh? :D

Yea. I believe the trees have intelligence. That one's even more obvious.

But I'm not a pantheist.

Thanks.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

You most certainly are IF you really believe that natural elements (like water) have an innate intelligence.
.

No. I'm not an animist or pantheist.

Thanks

[Russianwolfe]

He says "all things were created by him" and explains that means all things in heaven and on earth, all visible and invisible things, all thrones and principlaities (authority and jurisdiction), all powers ...ALL THINGS were created by him and for him and he existed before "ALL THINGS" and it is by HIM that they all consist. What part of ALL THINGS do you not understand? How much more explicit does God need to be?


No one has answered my question about Greek and objects vs. people.

I am not a thing and you are not a thing. We are people. And I wonder if Greek makes that kind of distinction. Does anybody have an answer?





He did. All things means ALL things. And if you think he is lying for saying that God created man, go ahead and make your case.



Its not a matter of God lying, its a matter of understanding the verse correctly. Greek is a very sophisticated language and I wonder if it makes a distinction between people and objects. If it does, then it is not correct to say that this verse says that peole are included in the list of things created in this verse.




A "living thing" is a thing by definition, Marvin and living things would be included by anyone who knows how to read as a subset of the category of "things" and the Bible is explicit in tellin you in perfectly understandable and unequivocal terms that God created "ALL THINGS". Are men not on earth? Are they not visible?


We might be a "thing" in modern English, but no one has answered my question about Greek making a distinction between objects and people.




So you leap from "maybe" Paul didn't mean man or any living thing to "that is not what Paul was saying" in one sentence. That's quite a leap! Suppose you back up and actually show me why we should think that Paul was NOT talking about mankind. Your mere conjecture is insufficient as support for ITSELF.


I am asking but one one seems to know.



Meanwhile, the context here is the book of Colosians in whcih Paul is writing to REFUTE the proto-gnosticism (YOUR theological ancestors) that was developing there at the time. The language he uses here is the same kind of language that the gnostics used to describe the hierarchies of deity and natural powers that they worshipped. That INCLUDED "Gods" and angels and men and natural forces.

When Paul says "ALL things", I see no reason to think he means "SOME things". Now ...if you would like to dispute that, suppose you begin by telling me what Paul SHOULD HAVE said in order to convey the idea of "ALL things" since the words "ALL things" seem indadequate to that task for you.


No conclusion can be reached until my question is answered.

Marvin

[BrianH]

No one has answered my question about Greek and objects vs. people.

I am not a thing and you are not a thing. We are people. And I wonder if Greek makes that kind of distinction. Does anybody have an answer?

First of all this is just dishonest. You did not ask any questions about Greek objects vs. people.

HERE is the complete text from the post to which I was responding:


Why when Paul said this does he only mention things that have no being? If he meant to say that God created man, why didn't he list that as well. Seems that if you examine this in context with the whole verse, then the omission of man and any other living thing becames a big hole in the argument that Paul meant to include man. Maybe Paul didn't mean man or any living thing. Even though God did create them, it looks like if you use this to say that God created man, that is not what Paul was saying. Something to think about.

...Nothing about "Greek" or "objects vs. people" here. You are just moving the goal post as Mormons are wot to do.

Secondly, people ARE "things" as EVEN YOU just said above; people are "living things". That SHOULD be obvious, so your attempt to hide your inability to deal with the fact that Paul explicitly refutes you behind the transparent scrim of such an equivocation is as obvious a trick as it is anemic as an excuse for not simply acknowledging the truth of God's word here.

And third, yes we have abundant lexical authority to answer your question and it is presented below.


Its not a matter of God lying, its a matter of understanding the verse correctly. Greek is a very sophisticated language and I wonder if it makes a distinction between people and objects. If it does, then it is not correct to say that this verse says that peole are included in the list of things created in this verse.

Before you presume to tell me that this language does not allow for the fact that God said through Paul that he created all things that are on earth and in heaven, visible and invisible, please cite your credentials in Koine Greek. Otherwise, your "wondering" here is not an argument and it is obvious that you are simply avoiding the clear intent of the inspired author as a desperate means of avoiding the fact that he has clearly refuted a fundamental tenet of your religion (the idea that God did NOT create anything but especially did not create people whom you have not learned to distinguish from "Gods").


I am asking but one one seems to know.


If you were asking, then why did you end with the declaration that "that is not what Paul was saying". That does not sound like a question. And if you ARE asking a question, you should know that you cannot use a question to refute a position.


No conclusion can be reached until my question is answered.

Wrong. Your question PRESUMES its own premise. You and I both know that you will never accept ANY answer that refutes what you have been told to "think" by your cult leaders. Here, watch this ...You presume to question the Greek here? You think that somehow Paul did NOT mean to tell you that God created ALL things, to include people? Okay, I will show you supreme grammatical authority that proves that he DID, and you will automatically reject it just as you have been trained to do, (even after that is exactly what I have told you you will do)...

Below is A.T. Robertson's commentary on Col 1:16. A.T. Robertson is among the supreme authorities on Koine Greek grammar and his books form a significant portion of the bookshelves of all other Koine scholars.


All things (ta panta). The universe as in Romans 11:35, a well-known philosophical phrase. It is repeated at the end of the verse. In him were created (en autwi ektisqh). Paul now gives the reason (oti, for) for the primacy of Christ in the work of creation (Romans 16). It is the constative aorist p***ive indicative ektisqh (from ktizw, old verb, to found, to create (Romans 1:25). This central activity of Christ in the work of creation is presented also in John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2 and is a complete denial of the Gnostic philosophy. The whole of creative activity is summed up in Christ including the angels in heaven and everything on earth. God wrought through "the Son of his love." All earthly dignities are included. Have been created (ektistai). Perfect p***ive indicative of ktizw, "stand created," "remain created." The permanence of the universe rests, then, on Christ far more than on gravity. It is a Christo-centric universe. Through him (di autou). As the intermediate and sustaining agent. He had already used en autwi (in him) as the sphere of activity. And unto him (kai eiß auton). This is the only remaining step to take and Paul takes it (1 Corinthians 15:28) See Ephesians 1:10 for similar use of en autwi of Christ and in Colossians 1:19; Colossians 20 again we have en autwi, di autou, eiß auton used of Christ. See Hebrews 2:10 for di on (because of whom) and di ou (by means of whom) applied to God concerning the universe (ta panta). In Romans 11:35 we find ex autou kai di autou kai eiß auton ta panta referring to God. But Paul does not use ex in this connection of Christ, but only en, dia, and eiß. See the same distinction preserved in 1 Corinthians 8:6 (ex of God, dia, of Christ).

Now did Paul mean to explain that God created all things (ALL things, the UNIVERSE and all that it contains) or not?

If you would like to dispute Dr. Robertson's claim that the grammar fully supports the otherwise obvious fact that Paul indeed has told you that God created "ALL THINGS", including all LIVING things (which necessarily includes mankind) then again, I request that you first cite your own Koine Greek credentials so that I can at least have some kind of reason to think that you are not just brushing the facts aside in order to pretend that your ignoranc e of this language somehow gives you superior insight into its meanings.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

No. I'm not an animist or pantheist.


If you believe what you said about elements being sufficiently conscious to hear and obey commands, you ARE an animist or a pantheist BY DEFINITION, Fig. That is what animists and/or pantheists believe and in fact it is this very belief that DEFINES their view.

You can deny it all you like, but if you really DO "think" that water (per your example) can actually hear and obey commands, then you are DEMONSTRATING by that belief that you ARE a pantheist or an animist.

OTH, if you are NOT a pantheist or an animist, then you do NOT believe your own ***ertion that the elements hear and obey commands. And if YOU do not believe your own ***ertion, I see no reason why I should either.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

If you believe what you said about elements being sufficiently conscious to hear and obey commands, you ARE an animist or a pantheist BY DEFINITION, Fig.

.

Call me what you like. Chances are, you'll be wrong, but it might make you feel smart.

My beliefs do not conform with what animists or pantheists believe.

And you really don't care anyway.

Thanks.

[BrianH]

Call me what you like. Chances are, you'll be wrong, but it might make you feel smart.

My beliefs do not conform with what animists or pantheists believe.

And you really don't care anyway.

I care about getting you to expose the ignoranc e and duplicity requried of Mormons. The fact is, deny it as you like, the attribution of intelligence to matter is the very definition of animism and other supers***ions. This is not about me calling you anythying. It is about the FACT that you have just demosntrated an animistic/pantheistic claim and now you are denying it.

-BH

.

[nrajeff]

I have nothing against animism. If the Japanese want to make cartoons, what's the big deal? :)

[BrianH]

Yeah, but they are really BAD cartoons.

Gimme Bugs Bunny and the Warner Bros crowd any day.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I care about getting you to expose the ignoranc e and duplicity requried of Mormons.

No. You really don't. I think you are just bored with your life.



The fact is, deny it as you like, the attribution of intelligence to matter is the very definition of animism and other supers***ions.

No, you only have a small portion of the facts.



This is not about me calling you anythying. It is about the FACT that you have just demosntrated an animistic/pantheistic claim and now you are denying it.


No. I haven't. Look it up, and I will show you the differences if you are really interested. There is no philosophical "ISM" that accurately describes what LDS believe.

[James Banta]

Other than polytheism.. I have shown you that before:

Polytheism:
pol⋅y⋅the⋅ism  –noun the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.

This does not require the worship of multiple gods just the belief that there are more than one or many gods.. This describes the view of divine beings I was taught as a mormon.. This describes the teaching of Joseph Smith in his Sermon on Plurality of Gods:

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three cons***ute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it! (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479)

By your prophets own words mormonism matches up with the definition of polytheism.. IHS jim

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Other than polytheism.. I have shown you that before:

Polytheism:
pol⋅y⋅the⋅ism  –noun the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.

This does not require the worship of multiple gods just the belief that there are more than one or many gods.. This describes the view of divine beings I was taught as a mormon.. This describes the teaching of Joseph Smith in his Sermon on Plurality of Gods:

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three cons***ute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it! (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479)

By your prophets own words mormonism matches up with the definition of polytheism.. IHS jim

Say whatever makes you feel secure and good about yourself, and have a good day.

We believe in 3 Gods (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), but we worship the Father. If that's what everyone in the world understands by the term polytheism, as it pertains to the LDS Church, then fine. But until then, I will continue to set people straight on the matter. Even if it upsets you in the process. Sorry.

Thanks.

[nrajeff]

We believe in 3 Gods (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), but we worship the Father.

---And, to elaborate, we believe in 3 distinct Persons who, while each is a deity in His own right, are, in a way--a metaphorical way--ONE GOD. Just like the 1st-century Christians believed, and just like Jesus taught. If some modern "traditional" Christians have a problem with that doctrine, that's too bad.

[theway]

---And, to elaborate, we believe in 3 distinct Persons who, while each is a deity in His own right, are, in a way--a metaphorical way--ONE GOD. Just like the 1st-century Christians believed, and just like Jesus taught. If some modern "traditional" Christians have a problem with that doctrine, that's too bad. The problem as I see it, is that we are lacking a fancy term for this “3 Gods which are one” concept other than Polytheism, something such as “The Trinity”. This way when someone calls you a Polytheist, you only need to say “No I’m not, I’m a Trinitarian” as though this somehow solves the problem.

[BrianH]

No. You really don't. I think you are just bored with your life.

I know your religion has you thinking you are a "God", Fig ...but believe it or not, you aren't. And you are in no position to dictate to me what I care about.


No, you only have a small portion of the facts.
I have every necessary and sufficient fact - the DEFINITION of animism (and to a lesser degree pantheism) is the belief that natrual elements posess intelligence. At this point you have offered exactly no facts to sustain your empty ***ertions.


No. I haven't. Look it up, and I will show you the differences if you are really interested. There is no philosophical "ISM" that accurately describes what LDS believe.
If you believe that water is conscious and can obey verbal commands, you believe in animISM by definition. Try as you might to run from the FACTS, Fig ...all you do is demosntrate your state of denial in the process.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

I know your religion has you thinking you are a "God", Fig ...but believe it or not, you aren't. And you are in no position to dictate to me what I care about.

Extremely inaccurate statement on your part. But apparently you don't care.



I have every necessary and sufficient fact - the DEFINITION of animism (and to a lesser degree pantheism) is the belief that natrual elements posess intelligence. At this point you have offered exactly no facts to sustain your empty ***ertions.

If you really care about showing how smart you are, and how wrong I am, then you will produce the definitions of animism and pantheism here so we can evaluate them in light of what I actually believe.



If you believe that water is conscious and can obey verbal commands, you believe in animISM by definition. Try as you might to run from the FACTS, Fig ...all you do is demosntrate your state of denial in the process.
-BH
.

Did I ever say that the water was conscious?

You really don't care, apparently.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

---And, to elaborate, we believe in 3 distinct Persons who, while each is a deity in His own right, are, in a way--a metaphorical way--ONE GOD. Just like the 1st-century Christians believed, and just like Jesus taught. If some modern "traditional" Christians have a problem with that doctrine, that's too bad.

Thanks, Jeff.

I'm trying to be as simple as possible in my answers, but sometimes I forget about the lurkers who may actually appreciate and be prepared for more information.

[BrianH]

Extremely inaccurate statement on your part. But apparently you don't care.


No its quite accurate and you prove it every time you presume to dictate to me what I care about.


If you really care about showing how smart you are, and how wrong I am, then you will produce the definitions of animism and pantheism here so we can evaluate them in light of what I actually believe.

Perhpaps you need to learn how to read and see for yourself that what I said I care about is getting YOU to demonstrate the duplicity required to be a Mormon.

You believe water has a mind? ...You are supers***ious. Water has no intelligence, Fig. Its ...water.


Did I ever say that the water was conscious?

You said it possessed intelligence. Inanimate objects that are not conscious do not possess intelligence.

TRY to connect with reality, Fig.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

You believe water has a mind? ...You are supers***ious. Water has no intelligence, Fig. Its ...water.

I never said water has a mind. You are resorting to your bag of old tricks again.

I believe the elements respond on their own to commands from God. Is that necessarily "intelligence" as you narrowly define the word? Probably not.

You never answered: Who was Jesus speaking to when He said "Peace, be still"?

If you really care about exposing me, then you will answer.

Thanks.

[Father_JD]

Yea. I believe the trees have intelligence. That one's even more obvious.

But I'm not a pantheist.

Thanks.

They do NOT have "intelligence", Fig...did JS or some other Mormon "prophet" venture to say they did?? :eek:

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

They do NOT have "intelligence", Fig...did JS or some other Mormon "prophet" venture to say they did?? :eek:

Maybe you could offer your official Christian opinion on
Who was Jesus speaking to when He said "Peace, be still"?

Or why did Jesus say in Matt. 17:20 :
20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

[akaSeerone]

Maybe you could offer your official Christian opinion on
Who was Jesus speaking to when He said "Peace, be still"?

Or why did Jesus say in Matt. 17:20 :
20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
What is this "official Christian opinion" malarkey?

Christians do not offer "opinion." We give Bible as in:

Jesus said.....

John 6:63

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

He simply has power over matter.

Matter does not need intelligence to obey Jesus, He simply speaks and what He speaks comes to p***....As in "LIGHT BE."...Amen

After all he created it from nothing by just speaking it into existence.

Andy

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

What is this "official Christian opinion" malarkey?

Christians do not offer "opinion." We give Bible as in:

Jesus said.....

John 6:63

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

He simply has power over matter.

Matter does not need intelligence to obey Jesus, He simply speaks and what He speaks comes to p***....As in "LIGHT BE."...Amen

After all he created it from nothing by just speaking it into existence.

Andy

You just gave me an opinion. Is this your OFFICIAL opinion?

Now tell me what is the official Bible position on who Jesus was speaking to when he said "Peace, be still"

Who was Jesus speaking to when He said "Peace, be still"?

Or why Jesus would tell people that they can speak to mountains to remove themselves.

If your official opinion holds true, then shouldn't people be asking God to tell the mountains to remove themselves?

[James Banta]

Yeah, but they are really BAD cartoons.

Gimme Bugs Bunny and the Warner Bros crowd any day.

-BH

.

Did you take my space Modulator? Bests there ever were!! IHS jim

[James Banta]

Say whatever makes you feel secure and good about yourself, and have a good day.

We believe in 3 Gods (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), but we worship the Father. If that's what everyone in the world understands by the term polytheism, as it pertains to the LDS Church, then fine. But until then, I will continue to set people straight on the matter. Even if it upsets you in the process. Sorry.

Thanks.

By your own words you confess to being a polytheist.. It doesn't matter how many Gods you worship believing in more than one is enough to make you a polytheist.. You #1 creedal statement then is a half truth.. You believe in God the eternal Father and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost.. This gives the impression that you believe not just that each of these Persons are God but that you are trinitarian of doctrine.. This is a deception for those that don't know you..

Your doctrine is a denial of the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.. You do understand the terrible consequences of denying the Holy Spirit don't you? I keep limiting this to you because I don't believe this denial is the doctrine of the LDS church.. This is your personal prevision. Most mormons I talk with believe Jesus to be a God and the Holy Spirit to be a God.. They are also polytheists but they don't back away from the divinity of Jesus or the Holy Spirit.. IHS jim

[BrianH]

I never said water has a mind. You are resorting to your bag of old tricks again.


Bag of tricks? You're the one with all the tricks Fig: You said water had intelligence. Intelligence requires a mind.


I believe the elements respond on their own to commands from God. Is that necessarily "intelligence" as you narrowly define the word? Probably not.

You are the one redefining words here, Fig. Wake up supers***ion boy. Water is not intelligent. Its WATER.


You never answered: Who was Jesus speaking to when He said "Peace, be still"?

The Sea of Gallilee. And according you to, that lake is "intelligent".

LOL!!

You poor guy.

-BH

.

[James Banta]

Thanks, Jeff.

I'm trying to be as simple as possible in my answers, but sometimes I forget about the lurkers who may actually appreciate and be prepared for more information.

Does this mean that you both now agree in the trinitarian God in a metaphorical way? Making you mere metaphorical christians. I deny a god that is not literally. A god who is a mere symbol or an emblem.. NO God is a Being of Power and persons. He is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He is a Being of eternal nature and omnipotences. He is not a creation of another being. He is not a changing Being than ascended to His position after p***ing though a mortality as we are now.. This Being is the Mighty God the Everlasting Father, the of Prince of Peace.. Mormonism makes His much less than He is.. You make Him a figure created in the mind of a man in the likeness of a man. Three gods that don't even exist in reality. IHS jim

[James Banta]

You just gave me an opinion. Is this your OFFICIAL opinion?

Now tell me what is the official Bible position on who Jesus was speaking to when he said "Peace, be still"

Who was Jesus speaking to when He said "Peace, be still"?

Or why Jesus would tell people that they can speak to mountains to remove themselves.

If your official opinion holds true, then shouldn't people be asking God to tell the mountains to remove themselves?

Yes it's officially.. For light didn't exist until God created it by the power of His word.. He Said LET THERE BE LIGHT. AND THERE WAS LIGHT. So if you want to give nothingness intelligence you have to say that These are statements of His power not the elements obeying Him.. Can you dream up other heresies to put forth in an attempt to make God appear to be weaker than He is? IHS jim

[nrajeff]

Does this mean that you both now agree in the trinitarian God in a metaphorical way? Making you mere metaphorical christians.

--Well, that WOULD fit in with your belief that you are only metaphorically a child of God...right? 'Cause you don't believe that ANYONE--anyone--is literally God's son or daughter. How tragically wrong you are, denying not only your own literal father-son relationship to God, but denying Jesus's as well.

[James Banta]

--Well, that WOULD fit in with your belief that you are only metaphorically a child of God...right? 'Cause you don't believe that ANYONE--anyone--is literally God's son or daughter. How tragically wrong you are, denying not only your own literal father-son relationship to God, but denying Jesus's as well.

When did I say that the Body of Jesus was not the literal and personal creation of God.. The Holy Spirit came upon Mary so the Holy Thing that grew within her was the Son of God..
<B>

Luke 1:35
</B>And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
No other person was born like this.. Jesus is uniquely the literal Son of God because of this event.. By special creation of God The Spirit of God Himself was given a tangible body. He lived among us and felt our hardships, our pains, our trials and became the author or eternal salvation to all who would believe.. We are not all born in this way we enter this world EVIL. WE are nothing but natural in all our ways.. Your own BofM says that the natural man is an enemy of God.. What is more natural than a new born baby? Jesus even called the religious men of His day the sons of Satan.. He said we needed a new birth because the first one we had brought us into a world as a sinner the new birth would bring us into the Kingdom of God..

It was you and Fig that coined this metaphorically a child of God component. All the Christian here tell you that you must abandon any hope of being saved in this body of death, and accept the gift of the new birth though faith in Jesus. We are adopted into the family of God no longer strangers but His children all because of the Work God did to bring us this wonderful gift through the Person of Jesus Christ.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Brian,
when did God create the law of cause and affect?

Or did He even create that law?

I know of no Bible verse that talks about this subject.
I dont know if the question is addressed in Scripture.

We do have the general understanding that "All things" were made by the Word.

But aside from that I really would need to find a verse that clearly goes at the question before I can say more...