God was once a man?!

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

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

I understand that is your belief, and I think very highly of you. But this is a non-answer to the question: What, exactly, does "free will" mean, if God has the option of creating me differently so my outcome is different but chooses not to do so?

[person0]

27 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

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

I think what Carborendum and Vort are getting at is related to how in LDS theology we do not believe God created us in the same way other Christians believe it.  Obviously you know that we believe that man is eternal and has always existed in some form or another.  As a result this would lead to the belief that our agency ('free will') is truly ours, it has been a part of our nature for all eternity even if we weren't using it in the same way we do now.  As a result, when God created our bodies and put us on this earth, even if He had foreknowledge of our decisions, it was not something He could change.  He could give us spirits bodies and physical bodies and help us to progress, but He could not alter our decision making process.

If God in fact created every aspect of human existence, and did not use already existing materials, then as a result, whatever God created, having foreknowledge, should reasonably be within His responsibility.  Hence Vort indicated his question about your interpretation of free will.  If God has the ability to create me from nothing, in theory, he should have the ability to create me as a being who would never choose sin.  It is incongruous if God in fact has that ability, and yet says:

1 hour ago, Vort said:

"Hey, I gave you Free Will®, so your eternal damnation is just."

The reason?  Because God in essence created me as a sinner from the moment of creation.  My agency, or 'free will' is simply a manifestation of His creation of my character, rather than my own choices.  Alternatively, in the LDS perspective, if we have in fact always existed eternally and are also 'uncreated' beings, then our ability to choose would also be 'uncreated'.  Therefore, even if God has 100% foreknowledge of us and our actions, we are still truly the ones making the choices, because our ability to choose good or evil is not a construct of the creative mind of God, but an eternally self-existent aspect of our being.

Having jumped in late here, I hope I accurately interpreted the misunderstanding and that this is helpful.

Edited August 22, 2017 by person0

[Guest]

17 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

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

If I am the source of confusion, then I apologize.  I hope it is not.  So, I'll attempt to clarify.

Let be go back to the explanations I've received from predestination proponents and my reaction to them.  If you can understand the differences between what these guys said, perhaps you'll see what I'm trying to say.

FIRST EXPLANATION: Received from my Catholic English teacher -- whom I revere very highly.  We were reading some literary works by reformationists.  We were on Calvin at the time.

Quote

Because God has foreknowledge, time is set in stone.  Therefore, His foreknowledge creates all actions.  And choices simply don't exist.  We are predestined.

 I argued against that logic, but literally NO one in the class even understood what I was saying.  I pointed out that there is cause and effect.  They were reversing it.  The fact that events will happen in a timeline cause God's foreknowledge of such events.  It is not the other way around.  They had cause and effect reversed.  They simply couldn't see that.  I have no idea why everyone in the class was a predestination proponent.  My understanding was that many protestants and Catholics were not.  But no one doubted this logic presented by Calvin.

 

SECOND EXPLANATION: Received from one of my best paying clients as we were on a business trip together.  He was an evangelical "believer" who thought Mormons were a cult, but he still liked doing business with me.  Maybe he wanted to save me.

Quote

My son is 7 years old.  We spend a lot of time together.  I know him well.  Now let's say I sit him at the table and place a brussels sprout and a piece of chocolate before him and asked him to pick one.  You know he's going to pick the chocolate.  I know it because I know my son.  He may think he chose something.  But when I'm the one placing the choices before him, and giving him no other options, I'm essentially making the choice for him.

At the same time, if I placed a plate of spaghetti vs an enchilada side-by-side, I don't know if I could predict what he'd choose.  But God knows us so well that He would be able to say which one we'd pick every time.

I didn't disagree with this logic.  In fact, it was this very logic that convinced me that we could NOT have been created ex nihilo.

 

I disagreed with the first.  I agreed with the second.  

It is not His foreknowledge that causes predestination.  It is caused by two thing together:

1. Ceation ex nihilo.
2. Omniscience.

Combine these and you have a hard time saying that predestination doesn't happen.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Guest

[zil]

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If I am the source of confusion, then I apologize.

No more "Captain Literal" for you.  Nope.  Your new title will be "Source of Confusion"!

[Rob Osborn]

I have always felt it ridiculous that God would give us choices and agency all the while knowing exactly what we would choose anyway. What would be the point? If that were true then God himself doesnt truly have the ability of making choices or have agency. Omniscience is thus wholly misunderstood. Having all knowledge only means that one knows all that is possible to be known.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, zil said:

No more "Captain Literal" for you.  Nope.  Your new title will be "Source of Confusion"!

How about a fusion for the confusion:  Captain Confusion!!!  (fanfare -- yey!!!)

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

How about a fusion for the confusion:  Captain Confusion!!!  (fanfare -- yey!!!)

We'll just elide bit by bit until we finally end up calling you "caption" and no one has a clue why.

[Guest]

Just now, zil said:

We'll just elide bit by bit until we finally end up calling you "caption" and no one has a clue why.

I'm literally confused by your caption.

[zil]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm literally confused by your caption.

Just in case you weren't just making a good comeback (it was a good comeback)...

Quote

e·lide

verb

1. omit (a sound or syllable) when speaking.

   "the indication of elided consonants or vowels"

   • join together; merge.

Captain Confusion

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

Just in case you weren't just making a good comeback (it was a good comeback)...

Captain Confusion

Please, Mistress, I'd like some mo'.

[chasingthewind]

On ‎8‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 1:36 PM, prisonchaplain said:

@Traveler Whether God created us out of pre-existing matter, or out of nothing, would not seem to impact the belief we have that he created us with free will.

If I am truly free, then my choices must originate with me; not God.  There must be some part of my being that God did not create (which is precisely what Mormonism teaches in D&C 93 where it says God didn't create the intelligences of men).  Thus, free will requires a pre-mortal existence and a rejection of creation ex nihilo.

Edited August 23, 2017 by chasingthewind

[prisonchaplain]

18 hours ago, Vort said:

I understand that is your belief, and I think very highly of you. But this is a non-answer to the question: What, exactly, does "free will" mean, if God has the option of creating me differently so my outcome is different but chooses not to do so?

Perhaps our difficulty in coming to a head with this is that I am looking at it from my perspective, and you are focused on God's. You see God able to manipulate and corral us. I see the choices before me, and know I can freely choose. You say that because God can manipulate I'm not free. I say that because I can choose, I am. All I can add is that, for the most part, God is not intervening in the roll out of human history. Bad and good happens because of good and bad choices.

[prisonchaplain]

@Carborendum You ran into some heavily Calvinist folk. I would disagree with the Catholic and the Evangelical believer (who happened to be a Predestinationist). Since none of us is really arguing for Predestination, the real issue is whether creation out of nothing is a doctrine that cannot logically mesh with free will. I'll start with the argument from silence.  None of the major free will denominations (Methodism being the historic one) see the conflict. Personally, I see the tension. I had a secular philosophy professor make the same argument--that foreknowledge is just a copout. God either knows and predetermines all, and we are not free, or God is not omniscient. He was probably unaware of the LDS belief on eternal pre-existence. To my then 17-year-old mine, and my current 53-year old one, I just don't see why God could not make us to be free to make our choices. He doesn't sit in front of our faces tempting us with chocolate, and holding the "Therefore you go to hell" card behind his back. He's not just playing around with human toys. Another thought:  If God knows all, does it really matter if he merely fashioned us, rather than creating us out of nothing? Would he not still be able to manipulate us, if that's his character? Theologically, there are a few scholars who argue for God being something less than all-knowing. They suggest he may know all that has been and is, but that the future is open. I don't agree with this at all. It is considered heresy by most. BUT, that is where the discussion about free will takes most--not to how we were created, but to how all-knowing God really is.

[Vort]

15 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

You say that because God can manipulate I'm not free. I say that because I can choose, I am.

Not quite. I'm saying that God's manipulation determines my outcome. That is the salient point. So what does it mean to say "I can choose"?

[prisonchaplain]

20 minutes ago, chasingthewind said:

If I am truly free, then my choices must originate with me; not God.  There must be some part of my being that God did not create - which is precisely what Mormonism teaches in D&C 93 where it says our intelligences were not created or made.  Thus, free will requires a pre-mortal existence and a rejection of creation ex nihilo. 

That seems to be the argument. One of the great experiences we have at this site is figuring out some of the reasons why we (Evangelicals vs. LDS) sometimes talk past each other, and don't even know why. For most here, your statement is obvious. I've never thought this way at all. I see the reasoning, but don't see it as obvious or necessary. I've always believed God made me out of nothing and that I have free will. Then again, I've not lived my life with D&C 93 as God inspired scripture.

[prisonchaplain]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not quite. I'm saying that God's manipulation determines my outcome. That is the salient point. So what does it mean to say "I can choose"?

I disagree with the premise, and have an example of how that works for us Evangelicals. I sometimes pray for the salvation of others, yet know that God will not force anyone to be saved. So, what am I really doing? I am asking God to bring Christians into to the lives of the one I am praying for--to provide godly influence. I'm asking that angels speak truth and that the Holy Spirit woo the person. I believe God does intervene in some of those ways. YET, God never brings a soul to the point where my outcome is determined. Even in the case where Pharoah's heart was hardened by God, I would argue that He merely pushed Pharoah along the direction he was already headed. I can choose--I have free will--because God does not manipulate in a way that determines my outcome.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I disagree with the premise, and have an example of how that works for us Evangelicals. I sometimes pray for the salvation of others, yet know that God will not force anyone to be saved. So, what am I really doing? I am asking God to bring Christians into to the lives of the one I am praying for--to provide godly influence. I'm asking that angels speak truth and that the Holy Spirit woo the person. I believe God does intervene in some of those ways. YET, God never brings a soul to the point where my outcome is determined. Even in the case where Pharoah's heart was hardened by God, I would argue that He merely pushed Pharoah along the direction he was already headed. I can choose--I have free will--because God does not manipulate in a way that determines my outcome.

This is really fascinating. That which you see as a subtle but important nuance that allows, even requires, your understanding of the nature of personal choice vis-á-vis divine will, I see as an avoidance of the central facts. But I don't think you are avoiding the central facts; I think you simply don't perceive them as I do, and that you emphasize different (in my view, the wrong) elements.

This is the nature of religious conversations. Perhaps it is the nature of all or most conversations we have in mortality, an inevitable consequence of our fallen state. Very interesting, to say the least.

Those with goodwill toward each other, as in the present case, can marvel and perhaps even laugh at such things over their beer -- or in this case, root beer. I fear that when this phenomenon occurs between unfriendly factions where such warm feelings aren't present, accusations of "liar!" and "fool!" fly freely. There is an important lesson here for me, if I can identify it and apply it in my life and conversations.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I just don't see why God could not make us to be free to make our choices.

I don't either.  But that is a faith based argument, not a logical one.  As I said before, if you believe it on faith, I can totally respect that.  But you're trying to make a logical argument out of it and it does not address the cause and effect train.  However, see my commentary after the third quote below.

29 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

He doesn't sit in front of our faces tempting us with chocolate, and holding the "Therefore you go to hell" card behind his back. He's not just playing around with human toys. 

I can see how you got that out of the analogy my "believing" friend gave.  But it wasn't in an attitude of "playing around" with us.  It was a simple analysis of cause and effect.  This is why he even went to the spaghetti and enchilada analogy.  Again, think about how a clock is formed and how it works.

29 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Another thought:  If God knows all, does it really matter if he merely fashioned us, rather than creating us out of nothing? Would he not still be able to manipulate us, if that's his character? 

OK.  THIS ^^ is an EXCELLENT argument to say "there is no difference".  

Now we get to the second discussion.  I think perhaps you saw this as the same discussion.  I saw it as another one entirely.  But we had to get past the first portion to even get here.

Yes, that is absolutely true.  He certainly can manipulate us if that were His character.  But manipulation was never a topic of discussion.  It was about knowledge, intent, and responsibility.  We can both agree that God is not manipulative.  That is not His character.

Before I go on, I don't know enough about your position on the purpose of life or God's end game is.  Please enlighten me.

The Mormon position is found in Moses 1:39

Quote

For behold, this is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Tell me yours, and we'll shift the discussion to this phase.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Guest

[Traveler]

45 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I disagree with the premise, and have an example of how that works for us Evangelicals. I sometimes pray for the salvation of others, yet know that God will not force anyone to be saved. So, what am I really doing? I am asking God to bring Christians into to the lives of the one I am praying for--to provide godly influence. I'm asking that angels speak truth and that the Holy Spirit woo the person. I believe God does intervene in some of those ways. YET, God never brings a soul to the point where my outcome is determined. Even in the case where Pharoah's heart was hardened by God, I would argue that He merely pushed Pharoah along the direction he was already headed. I can choose--I have free will--because God does not manipulate in a way that determines my outcome.

 

I have come to hold the notion that mortal man does not have the agency or free will many try to define.  To illustrate; have you considered that you cannot make choices beyond the circumstances and abilities to which you were created?  That despite the illusion of freedom – especially freedom to choose – mankind is not created equal. 

So, I wonder – when Evangelicals encounter obvious conflicts or ideas – or is it that; recognizing a conflict is heresy or rebellion?   This is why I asked if you ever use empirical considerations to mitigate conflicts?  Or for you; is it considered faith to ignore such conflicts and believe it will be resolved later?  Thanks for your willingness to share your ideas.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

21 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

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

Right.  So we're back to... Hell is better than Nothing.  Which you've already claimed is not quite right.

Edited August 23, 2017 by anatess2

[person0]

@Carborendum and @prisonchaplain,

Your discussion also goes back to another point I had recently made in a different thread.  Why would the atonement be necessary to reconcile something that God created 100% on His own?   If God made us from nothing, there shouldn't be anything stopping Him from deciding on His own what becomes of us.  Our choices would only apply to whatever rules he decides to make up.  I don't see why the atonement would even be part of the process unless he were doing it for 'fun'.

Edited August 23, 2017 by person0

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Before I go on, I don't know enough about your position on the purpose of life or God's end game is.  Please enlighten me.

The Mormon position is found in Moses 1:39

Tell me yours, and we'll shift the discussion to this phase.

What we know about the end of time, and the eternity to follow is that the redeemed shall have glorified bodies (much like Jesus, after the resurrection), we shall 'rule and reign with Him,' we shall see as He sees, there will be a lot of worship, we shall judge angels, and that the rewards and missions we receive shall be generous and fulfilling. While we never expect to become what God is, we expect to gain godlike powers, insights, and labor. Our communion with God will be beyond our current understanding, since his glory is what directly lights the world to come.  Hope that works as a start.

[prisonchaplain]

26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Right.  So we're back to... Hell is better than Nothing.  Which you've already claimed is not quite right.

Maybe what we are back to is that it is better to be able to choose between God and self than to not have the choice. For those who choose self and hell, nothing would have been better. However, granting them nothing would likely require that we all get nothing. 

Edited August 23, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[anatess2]

Just now, prisonchaplain said:

Maybe what we are back to is that it is better to be able to choose between God and self than to not half the choice. For those who choose self and hell, nothing would have been better. However, granting them nothing would likely require that we all get nothing. 

Which means... God created them to condemn them for the sake of others achieving heaven.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

What we know about the end of time, and the eternity to follow is that the redeemed shall have glorified bodies (much like Jesus, after the resurrection), we shall 'rule and reign with Him,' we shall see as He sees, there will be a lot of worship, we shall judge angels, and that the rewards and missions we receive shall be generous and fulfilling. While we never expect to become what God is, we expect to gain godlike powers, insights, and labor. Our communion with God will be beyond our current understanding, since his glory is what directly lights the world to come.  Hope that works as a start.

Well, that's interesting.  But my question was not about our rewards, but rather, God's purpose in making us.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Guest