Eternal truths

Originally posted by Regret
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?

Originally posted by ThePittman
I have never heard that applied to matter, energy yes but not matter. I have a few friends that are Mormons but I have never heard that before.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:29
29 ...Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Russell M. Nelson (Apostle), “The Creation,” Ensign, May 2000, 84

The Creation did not happen by chance. It did not come ex nihilo (out of nothing).

Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, “The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation,” Ensign, Jan. 1989, 27

Hand in hand with the doctrine that man is eternal came Joseph Smith’s teachings about the creation of the world. While others taught that God created the world ex nihilo (out of nothing), he taught that God formed the earth from material that already existed.
...
The early Christians believed in a concept of creation through organization similar to that Joseph Smith taught. The Christians in the first two centuries after Christ indeed believed that God created the earth by organizing it from material that had existed eternally. Justin Martyr, for example, wrote about A.D. 165 that “[God] in the beginning did create all things out of unformed matter.” 39

Two currents of thought may be largely responsible for the change in traditional Christian doctrine: gnostic ideas and Greek philosophy. Both gnostics and Greek philosophers taught that only the spirit is pure, and that body and matter are corrupt. It was therefore inconceivable for them to believe that material things could proceed from spiritual things. Because of such ideas, ex nihilo creation became a pillar of faith in traditional Christianity. 40 This commonly accepted view of creation was what Joseph Smith challenged as he initiated a return to the view of earlier Christians.

Neal A. Maxwell (Apostle), “The Richness of the Restoration,” Ensign, Mar. 1998, 8

Latter-day Saints also know that God did not create man ex nihilo, out of nothing. The concept of an “out of nothing” creation confronts its adherents with a severe dilemma. One commentator wrote of human suffering and an “out of nothing” creation: “We cannot say that [God] would like to help but cannot: God is omnipotent. We cannot say that he would help if he only knew: God is omniscient. We cannot say that he is not responsible for the wickedness of others: God creates those others. Indeed an omnipotent, omniscient God [who creates all things absolutely—i.e., out of nothing] must be an accessory before (and during) the fact to every human misdeed; as well as being responsible for every non-moral defect in the universe.” 6

“The Fulness of the Gospel: Agency,” Ensign, Mar. 2006, 18

Most Christian churches believe God created His children ex nihilo—out of nothing. If this were true, then God might be held accountable for any evil we would do because He created us with flaws and weaknesses. But we know our Heavenly Father did not create us out of nothing, and He is not responsible for our weaknesses or sins. He merely places us, His spirit children, in spheres where we can learn and grow by exercising our agency, if we employ it correctly.

Andrew Skinner, “The Book of Abraham: A Most Remarkable Book,” Ensign, Mar. 1997, 16

In the book of Abraham we have clear expression of the creative efforts of the Gods in organizing and forming the earth and heavens (see Abr. 4:1). Such language assumes the existence of materials before the creation of this earth began, and it corroborates the earlier statement in Abraham 3:24 [Abr. 3:24]: “we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth” (emphasis added). The doctrine of creation thus taught in Abraham opposes the notion of a creation ex nihilo (literally, creation “out of nothing”). It also fits perfectly with the original Hebrew verb bara’, used in the Hebrew Bible account of the Creation. This Hebrew term and its Semitic cognates literally mean to form, to shape out, to fashion by cutting already existing material. 17 In this connection the Prophet Joseph Smith taught:

“You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, ‘Doesn’t the Bible say He created the world?’ And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the [Hebrew] word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship.”

Originally posted by Regret
I do not disagree that God would know he would eventually instate the law. Regardless, he did not violate it prior to its instatement. It is not hypocritical.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Very well said.. 😖mart:

Originally posted by Atlantis001
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 Atlantis001
I was also thinking how can something not have a cause... like God.

IMO, when discussing "God," there are no limits, however impossible/inconceivable/paradoxical something may seem.

Whenever I am asked, "Where did God come from?" my answer is, "Do you want the boring answer, or the interesting answer?"

The boring (and simplest) answer is that God Always Was: no causes need apply.

When I give the interesting answer, it always goes something like this:
"Who created God?"
"God created Himself."
"How can God create Himself?"
"That's what makes God God." (and I'll throw in a sly smile, just for good measure). 😉

If reality was a story (?), God would be the ultimate plot device.

Originally posted by Mindship
The boring (and simplest) answer is that God Always Was: no causes need apply.

Which always works well for me -- the other stuff makes my brain hurt, or maybe I am just too lazy to read and/or comprehend it all(I am thinking it is the latter of the two).

I was always the type of kid - where if my parents bought me a brand new truck - I would take the truck out of the package - and start playing with the box..He..He...He. 😉 😆 (throws in wry smile - and adds another obligatory one. The second is added to let everyone know -- that the post should be taken lightly..He..He..He..)

Originally posted by Regret
This law has many exceptions, some of which you yourself have admittedly agreed with. If killing is necessary for defense of self or another, it is acceptable and not a sin.

1) IT IS STILL Hypocritical on God's part. God does not need to defendhimself. Nothing should be necessary for God to do, if he is truly omnipotent.

2) You wanna talk exceptions? Okay, so I guess If I have Gay Sex to save my own life, then it's acceptable, but If i Do it for pleasure, THEN it's bad 🙄

Originally posted by Regret
Another consideration is that this command is in reference to murder and not in reference to killing that were justified

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

The Commandment CLEARLY and LITERALLY states you cannot KILL. It does NOT suggest you can kill if there's justification by ANY MEANS. Such a cop out dude....

God broke his OWN LAW....FACE IT !

Originally posted by Regret
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.

Bullshit....GOD DID NOT HAVE TO KILL THE FIRST BORN SONS OF EGYPT.... You mean to tell me that the PHAROAH somehow BLACKMAILED GOD, or that the Pharoah FORCED God to do it ? Give me a break !

"Oh the devil made me do it" now turns into "the Pharoah made me do it"....what a chicken ass cop out on God's part again.

Not only did God MURDER mass people, he murdered BABIES !

And then we wanna fight ABORTION 😆 😆 😆

God being omnipotent and all, could have easily time-froze the pharaoh, teleported the Isrealites out of Egypt, given change to Pharoah's heart, KILL THE PHAROAH HIMSELF, or the the VERY LEAST KILL ONLY the Pharoah's son and no one else.

But no....he made a desparate move by killing young boys.....

Your God is CERTAINLY a limitted one ✅

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

Yes....just being HUMAN....no wait....just being a LIVING CREATURE should prove you do not deserve destruction.

Yet again, this does NOT counter my point in ANY way, shape, or form. God could have easily erased them from existance, rewind time so thier sins were never committed, or an infinite number of other things....but he decided to be a drama queen and murder hundreds of people.

YOU GO GOD !

Break your own LAWS, and do it in STYLE !

Careful.....God's gonna get YA ! fear

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

Probably because he had no PROOF the same way you have no proof of God's existance. I guess God will eventually wipe us all out again 😆

Again, this does not counter my point. God killed BILLIONS of people this time.....Hitler must be JEALOUS !

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

So what ? The Mafia gives you a warning before they kill you. The Inquisition gave warning to people before they tortured and killed them (in the name of your God, btw)....my old bully used to give me warnings before pounding my ass to cream...

Somehow, your God is better ?

Originally posted by Regret
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.

So what ? I thought God's will was UNCHANGING....a YES, ANOTHER CONTRADICTION......

Thank You Regret for proving what absolute uncertainty and insecurity follows Christianity. 👆

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So what ? I thought God's will was [b]UNCHANGING....a YES, ANOTHER CONTRADICTION...... [/B]

God is unchanging, what does this mean? God's will does not change, but methods used do. Man is the subject and as the subject changes so does the method employed, to believe otherwise is in error. The subject should be its own control, its own baseline. Study AB and ABA experimental design. God's purpose is unchanging. God's will is unchanging. Man is changing, Man must then be treated differentially based on the state that man is in. You seem to have the inability to grasp this concept.

The rest of your post is merely justification for your beliefs, and only true from your perspective. Also, you responded rather rudely and insultingly. I am tired of dealing with you when you behave in this manner, and as such I will not respond more than I have here. I do not hold this against you, and have already let the insult pass, but without contact with some consequence how would you learn?

Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, when discussing "God," there are no limits, however impossible/inconceivable/paradoxical something may seem.

Whenever I am asked, "Where did God come from?" my answer is, "Do you want the boring answer, or the interesting answer?"

The boring (and simplest) answer is that God Always Was: no causes need apply.

When I give the interesting answer, it always goes something like this:
"Who created God?"
"God created Himself."
"How can God create Himself?"
"That's what makes God God." (and I'll throw in a sly smile, just for good measure). 😉

If reality was a story (?), God would be the ultimate plot device.

Yeah, it could be... perhaps this is the point where the intellect find its limits................ but I´m still thinking about this.

Its insteresting anyway, if there is really some "reason" or meaning beyond this, then it cannot be translated into words since saying that "God has no cause" doesn´t explain much.

It is something that cannot be infered, but it is not just assumed since it is the truth in someway... or at least supposed to be. But why it is the truth in someway , and what way is this ?

IMO, words are first a map then a barrier to truth. At some point, one has to stop reading the menu and taste the meal. Then truth is self-evident, requiring not our understanding, only our witness.

jerry

The only eternal true is "we were".

"we is"

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
"we is"

Not forever.