Eternal truths

Given a system of beliefs, are there any truths (facts that are generally accepted as such) that hold over from this existence to whatever eternal existence you believe in?

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and we believe that everything we experience in this existence is symbolic of something eternal. We also believe that God will not give us command, or place us under some law, that he himself will not follow himself. Given this perspective, we tend to view natural laws and religious laws as having an eternally based type.

Examples:

Matter can neither be destroyed or created, only altered in form. We believe that there is a substance, referred to as the light of truth, that was not created and cannot be created or destroyed. This substance is the base component of everything in existence. Thus, the Law of Conservation of Matter is an eternal truth from a Mormon perspective.

We believe that man is progressing from a primitive state to a more complex state. Intelligence organized by God from the light of truth into spirits, spirits placed into a physical frame, following the final judgement mentioned in the Bible we move to another state, and so on. A concept we term eternal progression. This concept has a type in much of the concept of evolution, and has been compared to evolution a few times that I am aware of by LDS authorities.

Does your religion, or perhaps just your personal beliefs, have any concepts that can be looked at and understood in a similar manner?

As an atheist, I like to examine what is true and what makes no sense. I sorta inspect if you will.

In fact, I see the whole, "for every action there is an equal and oposite reaction" as religious because there is nothing to explain why there's a reaction. There's evidence for a reaction or rather, the possibilty of there being a reaction, but no explanation as to why.

Originally posted by Regret

[QUOTE]I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and we believe that everything we experience in this existence is symbolic of something eternal. We also believe that God will not give us command, or place us under some law, that he himself will not follow himself. Given this perspective, we tend to view natural laws and religious laws as having an eternally based type.

What do you mean by " he himself will not follow himself " ?

Originally posted by Fatima
What do you mean by " he himself will not follow himself " ?

If you are trying to understand why the universe is restricted to laws as it is if after all there is a God being who trancends them. Then, I beleive that the laws that restricts our physical universe are a consequence of a limited understanding of the universe, so thera are not really any restrictions out there.

Perhaps there are some eternal laws after all and some real restrictions, but sometimes it is like if restrictions are consequences of the belief system you believe but since we are free to choose what we believe, we can be free of those restrictions. Well, just my opinion anyway...

Originally posted by Regret
Any law/command God gives man God will abide by. God will not violate laws or commands he gives man. God will live by the laws and commands he requires man to abide.

But in this case you make God equal with human ,I mean god has the right to order the human and make laws , not necessary god must live by its laws, and yea how god violate its own laws and commands?

sorry for these questions but its alittle confusing... 😉

Originally posted by Atlantis001
If you are trying to understand why the universe is restricted to laws as it is if after all there is a God being who trancends them. Then, I beleive that the laws that restricts our physical universe are a consequence of a limited understanding of the universe, so thera are not really any restrictions out there.

Perhaps there are some eternal laws after all and some real restrictions, but sometimes it is like if restrictions are consequences of the belief system you believe but since we are free to choose what we believe, we can be free of those restrictions. Well, just my opinion anyway...

It could be argued that Holism is an infinite and eternal truth. Certainly, in our observable universe, there is an apparent tendency for parts to organize into wholes, those wholes being parts which organize into still larger/more complex wholes, and so on.

Of course, our observable universe may well be an infinitesimal part of an infinitely larger, unobservable cosmos, and because it is unobservable, it's hard to say what's going on in the rest of existence.

Then again, from what we can see: as more complex wholes emerge, we see that increasing levels of consciousness also emerge.

Now if we go with the concepts that...
"God" is infinite and eternal,
"God," therefore, encompasses All of the cosmos, seen and unseen,
and that "God" is the Absolute Pinnacle of Consciousness,
...one could say that an infinite and eternal propensity of existence--whether understood materially or spiritually--is a holistic drive toward higher levels of consciousness, until "God" fully awakens.

Once awakened, He looks around, thinks, "Wow, that was cool," then does it all over again.

Originally posted by Mindship
It could be argued that Holism is an infinite and eternal truth. Certainly, in our observable universe, there is an apparent tendency for parts to organize into wholes, those wholes being parts which organize into still larger/more complex wholes, and so on.

Of course, our observable universe may well be an infinitesimal part of an infinitely larger, unobservable cosmos, and because it is unobservable, it's hard to say what's going on in the rest of existence.

Then again, from what we can see: as more complex wholes emerge, we see that increasing levels of consciousness also emerge.

Now if we go with the concepts that...
"God" is infinite and eternal,
"God," therefore, encompasses All of the cosmos, seen and unseen,
and that "God" is the Absolute Pinnacle of Consciousness,
...one could say that an infinite and eternal propensity of existence--whether understood materially or spiritually--is a holistic drive toward higher levels of consciousness, until "God" fully awakens.

Once awakened, He looks around, thinks, "Wow, that was cool," then does it all over again.

Or we could just say -

God is Love -- Love is eternal and absolute, and Love created everything.

Sorry -- I have a bad habit of oversimplifying things. 😉

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Or we could just say -
God is Love -- Love is eternal and absolute, and Love created everything.
Sorry -- I have a bad habit of oversimplifying things. 😉

We could say both. 😉

Originally posted by Fatima
But in this case you make God equal with human ,I mean god has the right to order the human and make laws , not necessary god must live by its laws, and yea how god violate its own laws and commands?

sorry for these questions but its alittle confusing... 😉

Originally posted by Mindship
It could be argued that Holism is an infinite and eternal truth. Certainly, in our observable universe, there is an apparent tendency for parts to organize into wholes, those wholes being parts which organize into still larger/more complex wholes, and so on.

Of course, our observable universe may well be an infinitesimal part of an infinitely larger, unobservable cosmos, and because it is unobservable, it's hard to say what's going on in the rest of existence.

Then again, from what we can see: as more complex wholes emerge, we see that increasing levels of consciousness also emerge.

Now if we go with the concepts that...
"God" is infinite and eternal,
"God," therefore, encompasses All of the cosmos, seen and unseen,
and that "God" is the Absolute Pinnacle of Consciousness,
...one could say that an infinite and eternal propensity of existence--whether understood materially or spiritually--is a holistic drive toward higher levels of consciousness, until "God" fully awakens.

Once awakened, He looks around, thinks, "Wow, that was cool," then does it all over again.

Originally posted by Regret
A perfectly just God would not create laws/commandments that he himself would not abide by. A God that will not abide his own laws and commandments is not perfectly just, thus not perfect. He is not equal, he is just.

"Thou shalt not kill" - 5th Commandment

God kills:

-1st born sons of Egypt
-people of Sodom and Gomorrha
-Everyone who wasn't on Noah's Arc

😬

“The existence of God can be proved in five ways. The first and most obvious proof is the argument from change (ex parte motus). It is clearly the case that some things in this world are in the process of changing. Now everything that is in the process of being changed is changed by something else, since nothing is changed unless it is potentially that towards which it being changed, whereas that which changes is actual. To change something is nothing else than to bring it from potentiality to actuality, and a thing can be brought from potentiality to actuality only by something which is actual. Thus a fire, which is actually hot, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, thus changing and altering it. Now it is impossible for the same thing to be both actual and potential in the same respect, although it may be so in different respects. What is actually hot cannot at the same time be potentially hot, although it is potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that, in the same manner and in the same way, anything should be both the one which effects change and the one that is changed, so that it should change itself. Whatever is changed must therefore be changed by something else. If, then, whatever is changing it is itself changed, this also must be changed by something else, and this in turn by something else again. But this cannot go on forever, since there would then be no first cause to this process of change, and consequently no other agent of change, because secondary things which change cannot change unless they are changed by the first cause, in the same way as a stick cannot move unless it is moved by the hand. We are therefore bound to arrive at a first cause of change which is not changed by anything and everyone understands that this is God.”

God could be called evolution or cause and effect.

Something is caused (and must be caused) by something else. We know this from observation alone, as an effect cannot exist without a prior cause for that effect, such as a ripple in a pond requiring some cause, perhaps a stone being dropped within it, or an earthquake being caused by the plates beneath the earth shifting, and the earthquake is in itself the cause of buildings collapsing, and the buildings collapsing are in turn the cause of people being injured, etc. So, the cause of one effect is the effect of a prior cause, and so on, ad infinatum. However, Aquinas postulates that there must be an initial cause of all these subsequent causes, and this he terms "God". I agree with him to some extent here, in that I feel there is indeed one First Principle from which all others are derived, even if that First Principle is indescribable, infinite, and eternal. Some argue against this by asking why there cannot be a series of infinite causes, and to this I say: there is - and this series of infinite causes is God, who is infinite and the Cause of All (and also the Effect, by extension [or emanation], but that's a different topic entirely). If there is a series of infinite causes, and we call this "God", then, by logical conclusion, "God" is the First Principle, which is this series of infinite causes while simultaneously being an initial (infinite) cause, thus the reality of God as I always find him: a paradox.

To illustrate this better, let us use the following example:

A = God/Big Bang
B = Cosmos
C = Earth
D = Humanity

D is the Effect of Cause C, which is the Effect of Cause B, which is the Effect of Cause A. Logically, we have a First Principle, even if it is merely postulated due to our lack of understanding or inability to grasp anything beyond that. Since humanity exists, we know that its existence is the effect of some cause, which we can possibly generalise as "Earth", since without this planet none of the life forms here could exist, and humanity could not have evolved from them. The Earth, likewise, must be the effect of something else, which is, let's say, the Cosmos, or the Universe at large, through the various workings of the Solar System and the formation, etc. of stars. This, likewise, was established by some other cause, which Science currently calls "The Big Bang". We can call this "God", for now. If we accept that "The Big Bang" was the cause of our universe, then we have a First Principle. We can effectively label this "God", as he is generally conceived of as being the "Source" of All, or the First Principle (a label like "God" and "Big Bang" remains a label).

If we find out, however, that there was something before the Big Bang, the Big Bang ceases to be the First Principle, becoming a Second Principle to whatever new information we found created that effect (God, perhaps?). Likewise, recognising that there is indeed a Demiurge, who is not the First Principle (even if he thinks he is) means that this conception of "God the Creator" is not the First Principle, but the Second, and the First Principle remains "GOD" as he truly is. God is, in effect, the First Principle in actuality, even if the subsquent principles are rearanged constantly to fit the arising of new information. God is the Source of All, the Primal Cause, the Fullness, the Centre from which everthing Emanates and Radiates, and there cannot be anything beyond or above him, because if there was, then whatever he is ceases to be "GOD" (or "the First Principle"😉 and becomes a secondary principle to that which is above him, which is "GOD" and "the First Principle". So, even if we wrongly label something with these terms (such as the Demiurge), it doesn't defeat the reality that there is one Origin to which all of this goes back to (and all of this goes forward to in the End), and we label this: God.

Thus,

A = God
B = "God" [i.e. Demiurge]
C = Cosmos
D = Earth
E = Humanity.

Just a bigger point of view that could possilby be IT. ✅

http://henosis-decanus.blogspot.com/2006/11/does-god-exist.html

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
"Thou shalt not kill" - 5th Commandment

God kills:

-1st born sons of Egypt
-people of Sodom and Gomorrha
-Everyone who wasn't on Noah's Arc

😬

Another consideration is that this command is in reference to murder and not in reference to killing that were justified

The death of the firstborn sons of Egypt is on the head of the Pharaoh, as he chose their death over the freedom of the Israelites. As Pharaoh, his responsibility was to protect them, not maintain the slave population.

The people of Sodom and Gomorrha were given the opportunity to prove that they did not deserve the destruction that occurred.

Noah was given years to convince the people that died in the flood to repent and save themselves. They chose not to listen.

There are not instances of God killing that are not accompanied by ample warning and possibility of averting such death and destruction.

Regardless, the three examples you provide are prior to the commandment you quote. Few, if any, examples of God killing exist following the statement of this command.

Bullplop.

Any god that intended to instate a law or rule would know of the law or rule prior to its establishment, let alone an apparently omniscient precognitive god, and therefore is still highly hypocritical.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Bullplop.

Any god that intended to instate a law or rule would know of the law or rule prior to its establishment, let alone an apparently omniscient precognitive god, and therefore is still highly hypocritical.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Something is caused (and must be caused) by something else. We know this from observation alone, as an effect cannot exist without a prior cause for that effect, such as a ripple in a pond requiring some cause, perhaps a stone being dropped within it, or an earthquake being caused by the plates beneath the earth shifting, and the earthquake is in itself the cause of buildings collapsing, and the buildings collapsing are in turn the cause of people being injured, etc. So, the cause of one effect is the effect of a prior cause, and so on, ad infinatum. However, Aquinas postulates that there must be an initial cause of all these subsequent causes, and this he terms "God". I agree with him to some extent here, in that I feel there is indeed one First Principle from which all others are derived, even if that First Principle is indescribable, infinite, and eternal. Some argue against this by asking why there cannot be a series of infinite causes, and to this I say: there is - and this series of infinite causes is God, who is infinite and the Cause of All (and also the Effect, by extension [or emanation], but that's a different topic entirely). If there is a series of infinite causes, and we call this "God", then, by logical conclusion, "God" is the First Principle, which is this series of infinite causes while simultaneously being an initial (infinite) cause, thus the reality of God as I always find him: a paradox.

To illustrate this better, let us use the following example:

A = God/Big Bang
B = Cosmos
C = Earth
D = Humanity

D is the Effect of Cause C, which is the Effect of Cause B, which is the Effect of Cause A. Logically, we have a First Principle, even if it is merely postulated due to our lack of understanding or inability to grasp anything beyond that. Since humanity exists, we know that its existence is the effect of some cause, which we can possibly generalise as "Earth", since without this planet none of the life forms here could exist, and humanity could not have evolved from them. The Earth, likewise, must be the effect of something else, which is, let's say, the Cosmos, or the Universe at large, through the various workings of the Solar System and the formation, etc. of stars. This, likewise, was established by some other cause, which Science currently calls "The Big Bang". We can call this "God", for now. If we accept that "The Big Bang" was the cause of our universe, then we have a First Principle. We can effectively label this "God", as he is generally conceived of as being the "Source" of All, or the First Principle (a label like "God" and "Big Bang" remains a label).

If we find out, however, that there was something before the Big Bang, the Big Bang ceases to be the First Principle, becoming a Second Principle to whatever new information we found created that effect (God, perhaps?). Likewise, recognising that there is indeed a Demiurge, who is not the First Principle (even if he thinks he is) means that this conception of "God the Creator" is not the First Principle, but the Second, and the First Principle remains "GOD" as he truly is. God is, in effect, the First Principle in actuality, even if the subsquent principles are rearanged constantly to fit the arising of new information. God is the Source of All, the Primal Cause, the Fullness, the Centre from which everthing Emanates and Radiates, and there cannot be anything beyond or above him, because if there was, then whatever he is ceases to be "GOD" (or "the First Principle"😉 and becomes a secondary principle to that which is above him, which is "GOD" and "the First Principle". So, even if we wrongly label something with these terms (such as the Demiurge), it doesn't defeat the reality that there is one Origin to which all of this goes back to (and all of this goes forward to in the End), and we label this: God.

Thus,

A = God
B = "God" [i.e. Demiurge]
C = Cosmos
D = Earth
E = Humanity.

Just a bigger point of view that could possilby be IT. ✅

http://henosis-decanus.blogspot.com/2006/11/does-god-exist.html

Interesting way to explain the concept of demiurge. I mean if we want to analyze things in more detail, and explain all aspects and levels of God(like the demiurge), then this is a good way to think about what the demiurge is. The demiurge is that part of God who gave birth to matter. So the cause that is causing the universe is specifically that part of God called the demiurge.

I was also thinking how can something not have a cause... like God. Perhaps if we say that God is not an effect since it cannot be observed or conceived, and maybe only effects need causes.

Originally posted by Regret
A perfectly just God would not create laws/commandments that he himself would not abide by. A God that will not abide his own laws and commandments is not perfectly just, thus not perfect. He is not equal, he is just.

Umm..I understand what you mean. Of course God is not a sinner. But I think you are misunderstanding what the *law* represents. Quite simply put - the *law* is God's word(Christ). And Christ being God - is the *law*.

If Christ represents and IS the *law*, then of course - what he says or does will *always* be lawful.

So in response to Lord Urizen's silly(and willfully ignorant and misleading) arguments. When the *law* takes a life - then of course, it will always be abiding by the commands - because as stated above, it quite simply IS the law(which consists of the commands) - and thus being the law - it is always abiding by itself - not by the whims of man(or anyone else for that matter).

So with all this being stated - the argument boils down to -- do you believe that the law(Christ or God) is loving?(A love of course - which consists of righteousness and perfection).

Again - as we have discussed in other threads, you can either accept
(through faith) that the law(Christ/God/Love) represents truth and is loving - or you do not. It's that simple.