Being precedes, or is intrinsic to nature with primacy above that nature; being, being the source of that nature; nature cannot be if being does not precede it or have primacy over it.
Being. What is a being? My definition is that a being is the person or thing that “be”; effectively the identity or idea of the person or of the thing. Another way of putting it would be that “the being of a being” and the “person” that is the being are synonymous.
“I am who I am. I am therefore I am. I am what I be, and what I be is a being; I am a being, and that being is I.”
I find that a great deal of fruit comes out of my violent philosophical and theological rages, if only on some strange account that in my vast passions and my vast anger in war - war that is waged upon the moral and mental plane - I come forth with pillage and plunder, or else find secret stashes of resource that were held in my own castles that have now been discovered by the marauding general that is my will. That being said, though I do have a blunt disdain for the worldview of one, Aaron, who seems to be one of my more debateful opponents on this site…who manages to inspire great frustration in me. That akin to a Republican or Conservative toward a Democrat or Liberal. Though indeed I have such great disdain for his view (though certainly not for him personally), I should promptly thank him in part for the pillage I’ve gathered out of my own barns. All due respect given of course to this fellow.
At any rate, this particular basket of fruit is a furthered understanding that surrounds “Being” - which I have found helpful to the understanding of what is ultimately my existential place in the reality of things; and a closer understanding of who I am, what I am, and why I am, and what “I am” even means.
To express what I propose, may require artistic means, poetic means, in order to make better and more coherent sense. Logical equations concerning the nature of being can render themselves confusing, especially at the cost of being concise. But what is any study if there is no poetry from which study or thought is born? I’d say it is cruelty being not poetry.
Hence it is thus, let the poetry, the prose, the expressant work begin.
The Man
Consider the man. He is a being, he is indeed his very own being - that being is himself. When he talks to his neighbor he talks to a being, when he picks up a hat he picks up a “thing being”, and when he strolls down the street and meets a crowd he is in a crowd of individual beings all their own in that mighty collective.
The man takes his stroll further and sits beneath a tree on a hill in the park - and there he ponders the thing that he is. He considers that a philosopher once said, “I think therefore I am”…
He considers this, and asks himself the fundamental question, “do I exist because I think, or do I think because I exist?” Then it comes to him, the response of the very first one who ever had a thought to think when asked a similar question by one who might have ever wondered about his own existence. “I am that I am” was the response of that first of all that exist; in fact that very responder is the one who exists and always has, always will.
So it hits him, a stroke of brilliance. “I am, therefore I am.” Existence and Being, are synonymous; he exists because he be, he be because he exists; as long as he exists, he will be and he will be a being. It seems like such a simple conclusion, but it is very profound to the being who is the man. He does not exist because he thinks, he thinks because he exists. He settles the question in his mind, and the answer to him becomes plain. Being precedes Action, as cause precedes effect. Being precedes everything. Being is supernatural.
He begins to ponder the metaphysics, and things come into his mind. Firstly, what is his being? What is he? The answer lies in where he came from.
The Being is the source of everything, including other beings. God is the source of his being, God is the source of him.
The man’s existence began in the thoughts, the imagination, the mind of God. His being therefore, is a divine thought, and his existence is sourced in the thoughts of God as a living idea, a living thought, a living inspiration. God knew him before he was ever knit in the womb, before he was ever born, before he was ever conceived. He existed before he was ever born, before he was ever conceived - because he existed as a thought, a living thought, in the mind of God. His being is that inspiration, that artistic, living thought; a living idea.
The man is a divinely inspired, artistic, and living idea.
His source is God, and therefore his existence is God-maintained. The source of the man’s existence is God, and therefore the source of the man’s being is God. The Being is the source of a being. That being therefore is God-maintained, and God-dependent. His existence continues so long as God continues, his being continues so long as The Being continues. For him to cease to exist would require that The Being forget his existence, in which case he would cease to exist completely and would never have existed to begin with.
What then is the man upon the Earth? He is an idea that has been embodied and expressed upon the fields of matter, the cosmic canvas.
Matter is not God. Matter therefore is not the source of man, but is only the source - by means of God - for his embodiment. His embodiment is not the determining factor for his existence, because his existence is independent of Matter; this is by reason of the fact that the man’s existence, his being, begins and is existentially synonymous with the divine idea that has permanent existence in the mind and being of God. For the existence of the man to depend on his embodiment - to depend on Matter - is for Matter to have to be the source of the man’s being, and not God. Or else, it would demand that God did not know the man before he was constructed in the womb, or embodied. God would have to have been blind in the creation, or else not the creator of the man.
The man however, is known, and so the beginning of the being of the man - especially its origin and source - are in God, and in God his existence is permanent lest God forget the man out of existence and hence out of being.
Since the man’s existence is not dependent upon Matter, but only his embodiment in Matter; what happens to the man when he dies? He goes back to God, who is his source - the origin of his being and the home of it.
The man is the breath - the “in-spirit-ation” (inspiration) of God. Breathed as spirit into matter’s dust. An idea breathed into a construct of vibrating strings of energy; the man is a song in the mind of God being played upon the harpstrings of the universe, the poem being put into poetry. And when the dust of the man is put to rest, and goes back to the universe from whence it came, the spirit - the being - the idea that is the man goes back to God who is his origin. Til the time should come that he be played upon the harpstrings of the universe once more, a resurrected idea; a work of art on display forever more and beyond.
You’ll have to define “nature” in order for me to better understand what you’re saying here.
Maybe the above is just too philosophically dense for me, but I couldn’t really make much sense of it. What is your understanding of “person?” Is every being a person? Do you believe that there are non-personal beings?
You’re welcome! Also, am I the “Republican” or the “Democrat?” (Just kidding I don’t really involve myself in politics anymore - although I used to be a card-carrying Libertarian, and would still consider myself to have Libertarian leanings!)
I agree that we must exist before we can think, and that our existence has its source in, and is dependent on, God. However, I think we begin our existence as mortal beings, not as immortal beings, and that thinking/consciousness is inseparable from life (and that a being must therefore be a living being in order for it to be conscious).
Agreed; it is God - not chance or some impersonal law - who I believe formed man of dust from the ground and gave him life by breathing into his nostrils the “breath of life.” But that which was formed from the dust of the earth and given life by God was, I believe, a mortal being. And you and I are the mortal human descendents of this mortal human being. As such (and unless God intervenes) we will inevitably cease to be living beings one day, and our consciousness will thus cease until we are restored to a living existence.
Agreed!
Agreed!
How does this follow from what you say above? God is under no obligation to keep a finite being in perpetual, unbroken existence “as long as God continues.” If God sees fit to create a being in such a way that his living existence will or may indefinitely cease until it is permanently restored later (i.e., if God sees fit to create a mortal being that he later makes immortal), I don’t think we have any right to argue with God. Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” God ordains (or allows) a great deal that we may not prefer, but this doesn’t mean it is inconsistent with, or doesn’t somehow contribute to, our final happiness.
How does this follow?
Agreed!
I agree that matter is not the “source of man,” in that the matter by which we are constituted as living beings is not intelligent or rational and did not create us by its own will. I believe the matter by which I am constituted as a living being exists solely because God wills it to exist, and that it wouldn’t be organized - especially not organized so as to give rise to a rational, self-aware, living being as myself - without God.
And while my view does not depend on this, how do you know that God does not consist of matter in its highest and most perfect form? Might the matter of which we are knowledgeable be merely an inferior kind or form of matter compared to the matter of which God, the Supreme Being, may consist? I’m assuming that even you believe we will one day possess a physical body that is immortal like Christ’s, so couldn’t God have some kind of immortal, material form as well? Again, I’m not saying I necessarily believe this, but I was just wondering why you think such a view should be rejected.
What do you mean by “the man’s existence, his being, begins and is existentially synonymous with the divine idea that has permanent existence in the mind and being of God?” Do you mean we have existed as living, conscious beings for as long as we’ve been ideas in the mind of God?
Your view seems to be that a “materialist” such as myself should say (in order to be consistent), “Without matter I am nothing.” But this is only true in a relative sense, and would not be true in an absolute sense. In an absolute sense, without God I am nothing. When I pray, I don’t thank matter for my existence; I thank God. We are absolutely dependent on God for our existence as living, conscious beings, and only relatively dependent on the matter which God wills to exist as that by which we continue to exist and are constituted as living, conscious beings. The matter by which we are constituted - and which God wills to exist - is not the absolute source of our being. God is. The matter by which I am constituted exists because God wills it to exist, and it wouldn’t be organized - especially not organized so as to give rise to a rational, self-aware being as myself - without God.
I believe God created us to exist as material, embodied beings who depend on him for our existence. And anything less than am embodied existence for man would, I believe, necessarily be an inferior state of existence for man. Don’t you at least agree that bodily existence is God’s ideal for man?
Not true.
Agreed! God brought us into existence, and our existence is ultimately dependent on him.
Again, I don’t think this follows. That to which God chooses to give existence does not necessarily have to exist for as long as God exists. If God deems it best, he can bring something into existence that is mortal and will cease to exist as a living being, and then bring it back into existence as a living being at a future time without “forgetting” it. Man can conceptually exist as an idea in the mind of God after he has temporarily ceased to exist as a living, conscious being just as much as he conceptually existed in the mind of God before he began to exist as a living, conscious being.
I believe man was created by God to consciously exist as a material, embodied being (I also believe Heaven was created as a permanent abode for, and for the endless happiness of, embodied beings). When the body by which man is constituted dies and can no longer function, man ceases to exist as a living, conscious being. We die when our body dies. Since I believe mind and consciousness is inseparable from being a living being, and that our mind and consciousness emerges only when the body by which we are constituted is alive (meaning we are alive), mind and consciousness ceases to be when our body dies, and can only be restored if we are restored to a living, bodily existence.
“…then Yahweh God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living soul” (Gen 2:7).
Man is not the “breath” that makes him a “living soul.” The breath of life is something (an “it”) that was originally breathed into man’s nostrils by God to make him a “living soul.” If you’re mistaken on this most fundamental point, how can you be correct on everything else that depends on it?
While I love your “song” metaphor/imagery, if man is “a song in the mind of God being played upon the harpstrings of the universe,” then when this song temporarily ceases to be played upon the harpstrings of the universe, wouldn’t man be temporarily “no more” until the song begins to be played once again?
So the spirit that was breathed into Adam’s nostrils was an “idea?” And was this “idea” conscious and self-aware before it was breathed into Adam’s nostrils? If not, why do you think it was conscious and self-aware after it departed from Adam when he expired?
I believe Scripture affirms that man was created to exist as a conscious being in an embodied state. And as man did not begin to exist as a conscious being until after his body had already come into existence, it seems rather strange to say that he would “go back to God who is his origin” in a conscious, disembodied state.
Again, I like the music imagery. However, I think it supports my view much better than it does yours. Human beings are like a song that God is playing on the instrument of matter, and when God stops playing, the music stops temporarily. The resurrection is when God starts playing again - and this time, the song is complete and goes on forever:
"The last enemy to be destroyed is death…when the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
It could also extend to Being precedes the “nature of that being”.
A person is the meta-identity, the individual “I”.
A person is a being, in the sense of the common phrase “human being”.
A rock, is a “thing being” (thing that “be”).
lol
What do you define as “Life”? Is it material embodiment? Is it regulated to functioning within a three/four dimensional, material universe?
Where as, I believe the being of a human being is fundamentally the thought of God; the man that God had in mind before he made the man to manifest upon the Earth.
I believe the man is the thought of God, and so the man exists so long as the thought that the man is exists.
God is under no obligation to even make the man, resurrect him, or any obligation. So I won’t press forward into that side of the argument.
This isn’t about obligation, this is about the necessity of a God-maintained existence, in order for a thing to exist.
I believe that if the man is a thought of the Eternal God, timeless and unbound - then for God to forget the thought that is the man, would mean that the existence of the man, which depends upon God having existential knowledge of him, would have ceased to exist entirely in every timeline, in every form. As the Eternal, Timeless God would have no recollection of him in all of his omnipresent span throughout time and beyond it.
The man’s individual identity is the divine idea.
The man’s existence = the man’s being = the divine idea.
And yes, I effectively believe in pre-existence.
I don’t believe however, that matter is the source of “consciousness”.
If it is not the source, then it does not depend on matter to exist, or maintain it.
I believe that God will effectively “heaven-ise” the material into the spiritual, just as he will give us spiritual bodies.
I believe that it is ideal for the man to be embodied, but not necessary for his existence, or consciousness.
Please don’t misunderstand my view, I am not denying embodiment or the resurrection. I do not suspect that a “disembodied idea” will necessarily be without some sort of embodied expression in Heaven either. I simply do not believe embodiment is necessary for existence.
The Last Supper wasn’t a random painting that happened when DaVinci thoughtlessly splattered oil upon a canvas without thinking or looking. It existed first as an idea in DaVinci’s imagination, and continued to exist there, and would continue to exist there even if The Last Supper was burned before him.
The idea, which is the being of the man, must exist before embodiment, or else the above conditions (to which you say “not true”) apply.
If God forgot matter he would never have remembered to make it. God is not bound by time.
The same it is with a being, if God forgot a being he would never have remembered to make it.
I don’t believe matter is the source of consciousness, or that it is required to function.
Because “spirit” doesn’t mean just “breath” - God isn’t the inhalation or exhalation of oxygen, or air, yet God is Spirit.
And besides, I find it quite acceptable that “spirit” is called “spirit” because it is understood that the being was “breathed” into the matter, and hence the breath is the being breathed into the matter.
I don’t believe I’m mistaken, and neither do many others. Only soul sleepers insist that I, and many others including theologians, am mistaken. But then, I believe you’re mistaken as much as you believe I am, if not more.
I don’t believe the existence of a song depends on whether or not it is played. That is but the expression of the song through music (sound), the song exists so long as the idea of it exists within the maker of it.
I believe the “idea” was Adam, and that Adam is the idea of Adam and continued to exist in the mind of God even after his embodiment was terminated. Why do I think it was? Because I don’t believe consciousness is sourced from, or depends on matter.
Ultimately, I believe it is an intrinsic property of the being - maintained by The Being (God) as the being of the man is likewise maintained.
And I believe scripture affirms that man exists consciously post-mortem.
I believe Human Beings are the artistic thoughts of God, their being played upon the strings of the universe is but the further expression of their God-sourced, God-maintained, God-inspired existence.
The cessation of their theme upon the strings of the universe, I do not believe, ceases their existence - especially in God, where their existence began and is maintained.
I am already seated in Heavenly places. I am already in Christ, as Christ is already in me.
Ok, so I’ll substitute “Matter” for “nature”: “Being precedes, or is intrinsic to Matter with primacy above that Matter; being, being the source of that Matter; Matter cannot be if being does not precede it or have primacy over it.”
Unless you believe in the “pre-existence” of Adam and his descendents as conscious, self-aware beings before Adam was formed from the dust of the earth, I’m not sure how what you say above could possibly be true concerning man’s existence. According to Scripture, matter preceded Adam’s personal existence as a “living soul,” and his consciousness/self-awareness as a “living soul” did not emerge until after his material body had been formed by God and received the “breath of life.” I think the same goes for all of his descendents. My consciousness and self-awareness emerged sometime after I’d come into existence as a material, organized being, and seems to be dependent on the organized, information-filled matter that is my body. The only sense in which I existed before I was conceived is, I believe, in an unrealized, conceptual sense in the mind of God - and even then, what conceptually existed in God’s mind was, I believe, what I was to ultimately be as a material, embodied being. I do not believe I existed as a living, conscious being before my existence as a material, embodied being was actualized.
But that human beings didn’t “pre-exist” as living, conscious, self-aware beings prior to man’s existence on earth seems evident from the fact that man is not said to have been created by God until the 6th day of creation (Gen 1:24-31), which refers to his being formed from the dust of the earth (2:7). There is simply no mention of man’s existing as a living, conscious being prior to his being created in God’s image on the 6th day.
Ok, cool. So “Adam” refers to a personal being, right? It was “Adam” who was created from the dust of the earth as a fully formed human being and it was in Adam’s nostrils that God breathed the “breath of life” so that this fully-formed human being might be a “living soul.” And it was “Adam” who listened to his wife and ate of the forbidden tree, and it is “Adam” who was cursed to eat of the ground in pain all the days of his life. And it is concerning “Adam” that God said, “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Is not God addressing a personal being here - what you call the “individual ‘I’?” If so, then evidently “Adam” - the personal being who was created from the dust of the earth and addressed by God after he’d become a “living soul” - was an entirely mortal being who ultimately returned to the material elements from which he was created.
What about Jesus and David? After Jesus’ death, he was always said to be wherever his body was, not where his “spirit” (the “breath of life”) went (Matt 12:40; Acts 2:39, 13:29; 1 Cor 15:3-5). We’re also told that God would not “let [his] Holy One see corruption,” which refers to Jesus’ being raised from the dead after spending only three days in the tomb. Notice that what was prevented from “seeing corruption” was God’s “Holy One.” The words “Holy One” undoubtedly refers to a personal being - an “individual ‘I.’” It refers to Jesus himself. And in contrast to Jesus’ not seeing corruption, we’re told that David “fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption.” Does “David” not refer to a human being here - an “individual ‘I’?” If so, then this personal being - this "individual ‘I’ - fell asleep, was laid with his fathers and saw corruption. Three things are stated as happening to one personal being: falling asleep, being laid with his fathers, and seeing corruption. From these words alone it is evident that David was not in alive in heaven while Paul spoke of him. He was dead and in need of being “raised imperishable.”
I’m assuming that by “life” you mean the kind of life shared by all living things/beings (including plants, animals and human beings - even those human beings who are “dead in sin,” “alienated from the life of God” and lack the “life of the age”). So how do I define this “life” that is shared by all living things/beings? Before I take a stab at a definition, let me say what I think this life isn’t. Whatever this life is, it is not, I don’t think, a personal entity or thing. That is, it does not exist as a person and have a first-person perspective. Nor do I think this life shared by all living things is something that either lives or dies, or that can be considered either alive or dead. A living thing is either mortal or immortal, but life is not a living thing and is neither mortal nor immortal. And I don’t think life is something that can exist outside of or apart from a living being (whether the being is mortal or immortal, personal or impersonal). Just as love cannot exist apart from a lover and thought cannot exist apart from a thinker, so life is inseparable from a living thing.
So what is “life?” I’m inclined to understand it as the organizing force which distinguishes an organic being from an inorganic being. It is the force which gives a living being (whether the being is personal or impersonal) the capacity for functional activity, self-organization, self-regulation of internal conditions, the transmitting of information (etc.). For many life-forms, “functional activity” would include self-motion, and among the highest forms of life (such as God, angels and humans), “functional activity” would also include things like self-awareness (the capacity to notice the self), rational thought and intention.
I don’t think life “is” material embodiment. But for finite beings at least (at least, the kind of which Scripture speaks and of which we have knowledge from experience), I do think life is inseparable from some kind of material embodiment, and does not exist withou it. I say “for finite beings at least,” because I think God’s existence is, in some ways, radically different from that of his creatures, and that some aspects of his existence may ultimately be impossible for us to understand or relate to. What may be a necessary part of our existence (such as being localized and spatially extended) may be something that could not be a part of God’s existence without his ceasing to be God. At the same time, it may be that having an embodied existence of some sort is not one of those things, and that God has always existed in some kind of immortal, embodied form consisting of the highest form or quality of matter. Or perhaps the most superior form or kind of matter is an essential aspect of God’s existence in a way that is presently inconceivable to us. And even if that’s not the case, I still believe God is at least contingently manifesting himself and relating to finite beings in some kind of localized, spatially extended material form in heaven (which, again, I believe was created by God for the enjoyment of embodied, personal beings).
I’m inclined to say that this is the case for all living, finite beings. Even Heaven (i.e., the “third heaven” or “paradise”) should, I think, be understood as some sort of three/four dimensional, material realm (or at least something that is virtually indistinguishable from such a realm). It’s evident that, even according to your view, Heaven is a place in which localized, spatially extended beings with material bodies may live, for there is presently at least one such embodied being who calls Heaven home (i.e., Jesus our Lord). While I believe Heaven is both qualitatively and quantitatively superior to earth and the finite universe in which earth exists, it seems that Heaven would have to be a realm of matter, space and time (in the sense of sequence and duration), especially considering the fact that it was created for physically embodied beings to live in and enjoy.
I disagree. I don’t believe we existed as human beings in a realized state before we began to exist in a material, embodied form upon the Earth. Prior to being given realized, concrete existence on Earth we existed only in an unrealized, conceptual sense in the mind of God.
I think there’s a difference between existing in an unrealized, conceptual sense and existing in a realized, actual sense. While I do believe Adam existed conceptually in the mind of God before he was formed from the dust of the earth and given a living, conscious existence, I don’t believe he began to exist in a fully realized, actual sense until after he was created by God on the 6th day of creation.
Do you believe Adam has always been conscious and self-aware as long as he has existed as “the thought of God?”
I was simply pointing out that God is under no obligation to maintain a living thing (whether it be a plant, animal or human) in a continuous and unbroken state of living existence, which I think is relevant to this discussion.
Well neither of us thinks that God can or will forget anything he’s ever thought about, but I’m still perplexed as to why you think this means that man cannot cease to exist (even temporarily) as a living, conscious being.
Alright, so for clarification, is it your belief that every human being who will ever live in this world has pre-existed as a living, conscious, self-aware being for as long as they’ve been an “idea” in the mind of God? Also, do you think that the divine idea of man (that which you think is “man’s being”) is an embodied being or a disembodied being? I’m assuming it’s the latter, because otherwise it would mean we “pre-existed” as embodied beings before we existed as embodied beings in this world. But if the divine idea of man is a disembodied being, why do we presently exist - and why are we going to eternally exist (post-resurrection) - as something other than what God’s original idea of us was? And how can you say that embodied existence is “ideal” for man if God’s original idea of man was not as an embodied being?
It’s not my view that matter is the absolute or ultimate “source of consciousness” (i.e., I don’t think matter gave rise to consciousness by chance or some natural law). Without God I don’t think there would be any conscious beings in existence. But this doesn’t mean that human consciousness (of which God is the source by bringing about the conditions in which it may exist) is not, in a relative sense, dependent on organized matter for its emergence.
You do realize that the “spiritual body” of which Paul speaks is not called “spiritual” because it’s going to be an immaterial or non-physical body, right?
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. Could you elaborate?
Of course the Last Supper wasn’t a “random painting that happened when DaVinci thoughtlessly splattered oil upon a canvas without thinking or looking.” But the painting had no actual, objective and concrete existence until da Vinci actually painted it. The painting was unrealized/unactualized as long as it remained a subjective, abstract idea in da Vinci’s mind.
Let’s say I’m going to build a birdhouse. I first have to conceptualize what I want to build, and imagine how I want it to look. Then, I realize the conceptualized birdhouse by actually building it and giving it a concrete, objective existence. What was first an abstract idea in my mind becomes a realized thing having objective existence, and with which I can interact. The same, I believe, goes for man. First, man exists only conceptually, as an idea in the mind of God. Then, God realizes what was before only a subjective idea in his mind and gives it a fully realized, objective existence.
I’m not following your reasoning, Lefein. You wrote, “Or else, it would demand that God did not know the man before he was constructed in the womb, or embodied. God would have to have been blind in the creation, or else not the creator of the man.” What about the idea of man as a living, conscious embodied being? Since this idea must exist in God’s mind before man comes into objective, concrete existence as a living, self-aware and embodied being, does this mean man “pre-existed” as a living, self-aware and embodied being? If not, why not? Doesn’t the idea of man as a living, self-aware embodied being have to exist before man comes into actual, objective existence as a living, self-aware embodied being?
Again, I’m not following you. It’s not my view that God “forgets matter” or “forgets a being.” The fact that something ceases to exist as a living, conscious being does not mean God has forgotten it. A man who has ceased to be a living, conscious being continues to exist conceptually in God’s mind just as much as he did before he began to exist as a living, conscious being.
Is it your understanding that the words translated “spirit” have the same exact meaning - or refer to the same exact thing - everywhere the words appear in Scripture?
Did the “idea”/“being” that you think was breathed into Adam’s nostrils after Adam was formed from the dust of the earth (and which made Adam a “living soul”) pre-exist as a conscious, self-aware human being named “Adam” before it (or he?) was breathed into Adam’s nostrils? Do you think Adam existed as a “living soul” before he actually became a “living soul?”
I believe the matter by which I am constituted exists solely by the will of God, and that it wouldn’t be organized - especially not organized so as to give rise to a conscious, self-aware being as myself - without God. God is the source of the matter by which I am constituted and the source of its organization, and is thus the existential source of me as a living, conscious being. Without God, we would be nothing, even if matter were eternal (for I believe the organization of matter into living beings requires intelligent design). This fact doesn’t mean we’re not constituted by organized matter, though, or that consciousness is something that God can’t cause to emerge from organized matter.
I believe this, too. But it seems we have very different understandings of what this means! I’m also not really sure what this has to do with your argument.
I believe what Paul says in Eph 2:5-6 (i.e., concerning our being “made alive together with Christ” and being “raised up with him and seated with him in the heavenly places in Christ”) is figurative language that refers to the opposite state of what is being referred to in v. 1 and the beginning v. 5, and is the present state of all who believe. This present change in our “spiritual status” does not, I don’t think, refer to our being made alive in Christ on the “last day” at the sounding of the “last trumpet,” after Christ returns from heaven. The sense in which believers have been “made alive together with Christ” as described in Eph 2 is not, I don’t think, the same sense in which all who die in Adam will be made alive in Christ when death is abolished/swallowed up in victory. The former is a present reality for believers and has nothing to do with our becoming immortal and equal to the angels, while the latter is a future reality for all and has everything to do with our becoming immortal and equal to the angels.
I think I might know how to simplify the detail points into a clearer statements as to why I believe as I believe;
Concerning some of your responses dealing with my assertion that “Being precedes Matter”, this refers to the very essential property of “Being” - not just that of beings. But I am correct, I believe, in stating that Being precedes Matter because indeed God precedes Matter, or has primacy over it. God is The Being, and hence; the existential source and intrinsic essence of Being, from which all “beings that be”, and “things being” that “be” are sourced, even “Matter” which is a “thing being”.
I believe, that an idea existent within the mind of God - is effectively real, or reality. In the mind of God things are actualised, I do not believe there is anything in the mind of God that does not “actually exist”, the expressions may vary, even in the material sense (what you would call “actualised”) but the existence (which I would state as the “real idea that actually exists”) still exists, I believe, in the “actual” sense; and that it “exists indeed”. I also believe that because the “imagination of God” (what I will call it for sake of simplicity) is effectively the necessary foundation for a thing’s existence - that for God to not have that existent thing in mind, would be for that thing to not exist, and because of the nature of God being omnipresent through the system of time and beyond it - the thing would not just “not exist” after having existed for a time, but would cease to exist throughout all of time and beyond it, having effectively “never existed”, God - who is effectively “Existence Himself” having “forgotten” it. I hope that should clear up the confusion that promoted some of your responses.
As for the verses you presented, I interpret them differently; namely in that I don’t believe most of the verses representing the death of persons are written from that individual person’s perspective (rather obviously) but from those who are still on the Earth - likewise I don’t think they are perfect representations of the actual events going on at death.
I believe that in other cases of your responses, such as immateriality vs. materiality - you might be misunderstanding what I mean concerning the nature of that which is beyond matter. I believe that Matter is a spiritual “idea” that has been expressed into being in order to express other ideas, Matter is effectively spiritual. But I do not believe Matter is the sole, or foundational spiritual medium by which existence is expressed or necessary.
Now I shall try to answer some of the responses that might not have been answered (or attempted) with the above statements;
Which, I do not believe is impossible when apart from “embodiment” in the materialistic sense. But is capable of occurring within the “Ideal Self” of a being within The Being (God), who of course, himself does not require embodiment to be “alive”.
I believe the creation was more or less but the expression of his being (idea) upon the canvas of the material cosmos.
I believe “Adam” did, in some form or another of his being. What that would be, I know not.
Because, I don’t think it is possible for a thing to cease to exist if it exists in the mind of God, and I believe something existent in the mind of God is “existent indeed”.
Yes.
I don’t think it is an “either/or” issue. Embodiment and Disembodiment are, I believe, expressions of being as well as “state of being”, but they are not factors about whether or not the being itself exists.
As for whether or not he is embodied or disembodied in the Mind of God as an idea, I believe the man was expressed in some form or another, but I don’t think it was necessarily a “material” embodiment.
God is unchanging, but he isn’t “static” - and not everything God does is for purely utilitarian reasons. Mankind are art, and equally are artists, made by The Artist. Creativity and diverse expressions of the same idea are often a part of the artistry of any artist.
Consciousness, Life, and Being; if they do not require Matter to arise, or exist, I don’t see why they would depend on Matter to perpetuate.
I don’t think Matter will be Matter as we know it currently either. I don’t think “Spiritual” means “Immaterial” either, but I do believe Immateriality is something that is part of reality.
“I do not suspect that a “disembodied idea” will necessarily be without some sort of embodied expression in Heaven either.”
“Disembodied Idea”; I put it in quotes to reference the “being of a person which does not depend on Matter or Embodiment in Matter; to exist, be conscious, or be alive”.
I believe there will be some expression of form for the person in God, as it always has.
Since I believe the idea is “actual” not merely “conceptual” in the Mind of God, I believe what I believe.
I believe that “forgetting it” would be the only way it could cease to exist.
Not everywhere, but I certainly believe it means what I believe it means when it makes sense, just as other words in the Bible have that same quality.
Whether or not it was named “Adam” I cannot say.
As for “living soul”, I believe that is a phrase referring to his completed expression into being (in the same way our conception/birth is for us) upon the Earth. I do not believe it negates his pre-existence, or mine, or others, in the Mind of God.
I do not believe matter is a necessary (required) ingredient for the existence of Consciousness, Life, Being.
And I believe what Christ said. That I am alive, I have (presently, now, currently) eternal life (aionion life or “life-lasting-life”).
The following are speculations, and not arguments, but side notes to thoughts having been had during the conversation, but which may be useful for understanding my train of thought;
Christ said I will “never die” or, that I would not die by reason of this/the age/world.
I do not believe “death” is cessation of existence, nor do I think it has to do with mortality or immortality in their greater, more truthful sense. Existence is a property, I believe, that is solely to do with “being”, in that it is either/or. Either a being exists, or it isn’t a being. Immortality, Mortality, Life, Death, these I believe are “states of being”.
I might speculate that the state of being Mortal is a state which allows decay, and disease (not just in the viral sense, but also in the sense of Sin) to plague the being, leading up to the termination of its diseased expression upon the cosmic canvas (what we call “death”, but which I speculate is only part of what Death actually is), and Death (which I am not entirely sure what “Death” is, but I am convinced isn’t the cessation of existence), but not its primal, or primary existence; and certainly not the cessation of its existence in the Mind of God.
Immortality is the immunity to decay, disease, termination of expression, and Death.
I might speculate, that Death may actually be the abandonment, or putting aside, or separation from our “divine nature” as free children and offspring of God. These are speculations I will need to consider more deeply to make any commentary or posts on them.
I thought this discussion was about the being of man, not of God. It was concerning man’s being/existence - not God’s - of which I was specifically writing in the first part of my response. I said, “I’m not sure how what you say above could possibly be true concerning man’s existence.” So I think the most relevant question is not, “Does God’s being precede matter,” but rather, “Does man’s being precede matter?” One could believe that “God’s being precedes matter” and still believe that “matter precedes man’s being” without any inconsistency or contradiction. To believe that God is the source of our being doesn’t mean he didn’t use matter as the means by which he brought us into being.
When you say “I am correct…because…” I believe you’re taking for granted something I don’t think you’ve yet proven - viz., that God is something other than a material being, and that whatever makes God “something” rather than “nothing” is something other than a kind or form of organized matter/substance (e.g., matter in its highest and most perfect form).
i•de•a noun 1. Any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.
That which exists in God’s mind are actual ideas (just as that which exists in your mind are actual ideas), but an “idea” is simply a mental impression; it’s the product of mental activity and its existence is purely conceptual. I see no reason to believe that God’s ideas have any more objective reality or existence than the ideas of those beings made in God’s image (whether they be angels or men). For something to be an idea in God’s mind and an idea only implies that whatever is being conceptualized by God has not yet found expression as a concrete, objective reality. It has not yet been given real objective existence by God. God can have an idea of me as an embodied, mortal being typing on a keyboard (as I’m doing now), but until I actually, objectively exist and am actually doing what I’m doing now, my being and actions are but subjective mental impressions awaiting objective realization. I believe man becomes more than an idea in God’s mind the moment he is given a concrete, objective and realized personal existence by the exercise of God’s power in bringing him into existence. So if when you say, “in the mind of God things are actualized” and “actually exist,” you mean things exist in a fully realized, objective sense from God’s perspective, I think you’re mistaken. Scripture tells us that God thinks and purposes things and then brings them into objective and concrete existence, but we are nowhere told that anything “actually existed” in God’s mind in a concrete, objective sense before he actually brought it into existence as a material thing. God simply spoke some things into existence, and in regards to man, God first made known his intention to bring into being a creature called “man” (“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”), and then we’re told that God “created man in his own image…and said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it…” (etc.) Later we’re told that God created man by forming him from the dust of the earth, thereby bringing what was before only an idea - a thought - a mental impression - into objective, realized existence. There is no suggestion that man already existed before this time as a conscious, self-aware being (let alone as a disembodied being).
I believe that something’s being conceptualized in the mind of God is a necessary precondition or prerequisite to its coming into realized, objective existence (for if God never thinks of something then it will never come to be, and if he does think of something then I believe it will come to be), but as long as something exists as an idea only I don’t see any reason to believe it has any realized, objective existence yet. This is, I believe, just as true of man as it is of an ant or a tree or a planet or a star or anything else God created. The “idea” of an ant or a tree or a planet or a star or a man is just that - an idea, or a thought, in God’s mind that has yet to be given concrete, objective existence (either by God’s spoken word or by some other means). It’s a mental impression, and entirely conceptual. I believe that after God created man it could be said by God (and the angels), “Man exists,” rather than simply, “The idea of man exists.”
No, I’m afraid your response doesn’t clear up the “confusion” that promoted my responses. What do you mean by “time?” Perhaps you should unpack that a bit. Do you, for example, believe that God thinks and acts sequentially? Also, I’m still not sure why God’s bringing something into existence and then restoring it to existence after it has temporarily ceased to exist is an impossibility. I think God’s being sovereign over all existence and the source of all existence means he can speak something into existence, take away its existence and then restore it at a future time if he so chooses - all without “forgetting it.”
What’s funny is that when I argue that the account of Saul and the medium is not a “perfect representation” of the “actual events” that took place (but was rather written from the mistaken perspective of those who were actually present that night with Saul) you cry foul. But when those men who were actually inspired by God (such as Moses and Paul) refer to someone’s death (or their state after death) you argue that their perspective is not a “perfect representations of the actual events going on at death.” While I can see why it would be convenient for you to say that the perspective which Moses, Peter, Paul, Luke (etc.) were giving was not the “whole truth,” the problem is that your position does not merely require that their perspective was incomplete but rather that they were either mistaken (as I believe Saul and his companions were) or knowingly misrepresenting the facts. If the person “Adam,” for example, did not really return to the dust from which he was made, then what Moses quoted God (who certainly didn’t have a mere “earthly perspective”) as saying concerning Adam was not true but a misrepresentation of the facts concerning what really happened to Adam. And if the person “David” did not really “fall asleep,” was not really “laid with his fathers” and did not really “see corruption,” then what Paul said concerning David was not true but a misrepresentation of the facts concerning what really happened to David. If the person “Stephen” did not really fall asleep and was not really buried by devout men, then what Luke said concerning Stephen was not true and was a misrepresentation of the facts. Many more examples could be given where a person’s death is described in Scripture as if the inspired authors believed we really are constituted by our physical body, and that death really is the termination of life! But why not just take such verses at face value rather than assume that the perspective being given is inaccurate or “imperfect?” I mean, I take what Jesus said about the appearance of Moses and Elijah at face value when he explicitly called what his disciples experienced a “vision.”
What is a “spiritual idea” of something? And do you think that Matter itself was “actualized” as soon as the idea of Matter was conceptualized in God’s mind? Did Matter - and not just the idea of Matter - pre-exist in God’s mind? I mean, Matter had to be thought up by God before it could actually exist, right? What about Man as a mortal, embodied being? Was man as a mortal, embodied being actualized, and did he come into existence, as soon as the idea of man as a mortal, embodied being was conceived/conceptualized in God’s mind? Did man pre-exist in a mortal, embodied state before he existed on Earth (since man in a mortal, embodied state had to be an idea in God’s mind before he existed in such a state, right?)? What about all of creation? Did it pre-exist as an idea in God’s mind in an “actualized” sense, too? If not, why not? And if so, what’s the difference between “pre-existent” creation and existent creation?
Even if God doesn’t “require embodiment to be ‘alive’” (you put “alive” in quotation marks as if God is not really alive), it doesn’t mean finite beings don’t require a body to be alive. As I noted in my last post, there are certain aspects of God’s existence that are radically different from the existence of finite beings, and which are not be possible for us to share. Assuming God exists in a incorporeal state, this may be one of those aspects. So if it’s true that there is nowhere that God’s mind and first-person perspective is not, then this is something that is radically different from the existence of all finite personal beings, who must necessarily have “boundaries” to their existence (so to speak) and separate, localized “centers of consciousness.” Assuming that the Supreme Being has never existed corporeally, to say that we don’t need to exist corporeally because God doesn’t exist or need to exist corporeally to be God is, I believe, to make a category mistake.
At the same time, while it’s certainly a common assumption that people make, how do you know for sure that God’s existence is not in some sense corporeal (for you said, “…who of course, himself does not require embodiment to be ‘alive’”)? I don’t think we should just assume that God is a non-corporeal being, as if corporeal existence is somehow an inferior form of existence, or as if it would make God unworthy of our worship. Perhaps corporeal existence is an ideal state for man because it’s the state in which God has always existed and will always exist. Perhaps that which makes God “something” rather than “nothing” is matter in some kind of perfectly organized and immortal form (i.e., the highest and most perfect kind or form of matter).
But isn’t “the creation” synonymous with “the material cosmos?” Doesn’t the “material cosmos” include everything that God created before he rested on the 7th day? How then can “the creation” be “more or less the expression of God’s being (idea) upon the canvas of the creation?” That doesn’t make sense to me. I do believe the creation can be understood as an artistic expression of who God is, but I don’t think it existed in any objective, realized sense until God actually spoke it into existence.
I’d be surprised if you didn’t “know not,” since God has not revealed any such thing to us. But neither do I think that God has revealed anything about Adam and his descendents personally “pre-existing” at all, so I’m really not sure from what source you’re getting your information (other than your own speculation and philosophizing).
“Existent indeed” as an idea, yes, but an idea is not, I don’t think, a concrete thing having objective existence from the perspective of God and other personal beings. The “idea of creation” is not the same thing as the actual creation itself that God spoke into existence, and in which we live (and die). The former is a mental impression and exists conceptually in the mind of God. The latter is an objective, concrete reality.
You answered, “Yes.” But in answer to my next question (“Also, do you think that the divine idea of man is an embodied being or a disembodied being?”) you wrote:
Your answer seems a bit evasive here. Assuming disembodied existence is even possible, a “being itself” is either embodied or disembodied, right? While I think God can conceptualize us as being mortal embodied beings at one stage of our existence and as immortal embodied beings at another stage in our existence, I don’t believe we can exist (even conceptually) as beings who are both fully mortal and fully immortal at the same time. These states of being are mutually exclusive. Similarly, even if a disembodied state were possible, we cannot be both embodied and disembodied at the same time. But since you believe “the idea of man” is a conscious, self-aware entity, this conscious, self-aware entity (which you believe is the “divine idea of man”) must be either an embodied being or a disembodied being. Which is it? And what does it mean to say it was not “necessarily a ‘material’ embodiment?” Was it an “immaterial” embodiment?
Also, how can the divine idea of a disembodied being be expressed as an embodied being? That’s pretty much saying God thinks or conceptualizes one thing and then creates something else. If an embodied man is the expression of an idea that God had, then wouldn’t it mean the divine idea was of an embodied man? That is, wouldn’t it mean that what was being conceptualized by God (the idea) was a corporeal being rather than an incorporeal being?
That’s a big “if” there. You haven’t shown that finite beings can be alive and conscious apart from organized matter, nor have you even shown that the Supreme Being can be alive and conscious apart from organized matter of some kind. You’ve just taken it for granted as if it’s a given. But I’m not so sure that God isn’t a material/substantial Being (i.e., consisting of the highest and most perfect form or kind of matter in a perfectly organized, immortal form).
I agree that “immateriality” is something that is “part of reality.” All material things have immaterial attributes. “Fear” is an immateriality. “Patience” is an immateriality. “Compassion” is an immateriality. I could, of course, go on and on. But none of these things/attributes are (literally speaking) living, personal beings with conscious existence. Living, personal beings fear, are patient, and have compassion, but fear, patience and compassion could not exist apart from living, personal beings. There can be no fear apart from a being who is fearful. There could be no patience apart from a being who is patient. There could be no compassion apart from a being who is compassionate.
Wouldn’t the idea that led to something’s being expressed as an embodied being have to have been the idea of an embodied being? How could the idea of a disembodied being find expression as an embodied being? Does God think one thing and then do something else?
The idea is “actually” what? Answer: actually an idea. And an idea is a mental impression, or “any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity.”
I’m glad we’re agreed that the words translated “spirit” don’t have the same exact meaning - or refer to the same exact thing - everywhere the words appear in Scripture!
Was Adam’s “completed expression into being upon the earth” an idea in God’s mind before it was actually realized by God?
I agree that believers have aionion life now, but this is a spiritual blessing that we didn’t have at one point when the only life we possessed was the life that every animal has. Also, I’m pretty sure aionion in the LXX and NT refers to a period of time that may or may not be the length of a human being’s life (if that’s what you meant by “life-lasting-life”). Most of the time, aionion pertains to period of time that far exceeds a typical human lifespan.
I take it as a truth that God’s being, and Man’s being which was made in his likeness is more than just faculties and cognitive rationality, or moral sense. But that Man’s being is as a child, as a child is to his adult father. Just because the child can’t reach the highest cabinet, drive a car, and do the taxes; but the father can - doesn’t mean the child is existentially different from the parent, certainly not as existentially different as “God’s Being precedes Matter, but God’s children’s being does not”.
Nothing can “be” if the very property and ability to “be” does not first exist.
I’m using a Platoic-similar definition. That more akin to what is espoused by Idealism (the philosophy), though not exactly of course.
“Man exists” and “The idea of man exists” are synonymous, in my belief.
There is no other way to explain my position than as I explained it. I unfortunately, cannot ease your confusion.
Perhaps you might have an easier time explaining how a being or thing can actually, truly exist if God has no notion of the being or thing at all?
Your interpretations of imperfect accounts differ from mine, in that mine does not tend towards Materialistic Dependency, where as yours does.
That being said, if/when imperfections in the text arise; it does tend to lead toward materialistic ideas, but more towards the “Idealism” (in quotes, as it is close enough to Idealism, but not exactly so) I espouse; and if the imperfections became enough to dis-authoritise the Bible entirely, I would be unhindered by textual interpretations that do tend towards Materialism (such as yours) - the texts being rendered irrelevent by being without authority. Either way, with authority or without, it does not tend toward Materialism, and my interpretive doctrine, “tend all interpretations towards the positive, and grander”, will not tend towards Materialism, fundamentally.
The difference in that is means of expression. Expression is different from Existence.
As to at what monadic points God in Eternity chooses to bring forth time/space/dimensional expressions of an existent thing - that is at God’s choosing.
I believe you may be miscategorising the human child away from its God parent, by emphasising its finite embodiment rather than its nature as divine-offspring of God in its being, as the foundational premise behind your view of their existence.
I’m not a Pantheist, I am a Panentheist, hence I do not believe as you propose I hypothetically consider even after consideration of it.
Not in my opinion, I believe Creation involves much more than the Material Cosmos. I am also not a literal Creationist (Young Earth Creationist), so I am not bound by the concept that God only created what was stated in those six days of Genesis.
I don’t see any issues with philosophising, and speculating in light of The Spirit, and prayer.
On another note, I don’t see much difference between my own philosophising, and speculation in what is essentially my own expression of Idealism, and your philosophising and speculations in Materialism.
I don’t limit the ideas of God to being only conceptual. It is possible some or more are, but I do not believe “all are without exception”.
The Last Supper is both the idea in DaVinci’s head, and the idea expressed on the canvas in the museum - at the same time. They are also synonymous entities; The Last Supper is The Last Supper.
I think you are one-dimensionalising God a bit.
So, you are a Near-Pantheist?
As for having not proven my point, at least to your standards, you’ve not proven yours to mine. It seems we’re at an impasse.
There could be no beings apart from Being, which I do not believe is not dependent on Matter to be.
As for the rest, well, fear, compassion, etc, they are expressible by the Immaterial - unless God is the Pantheist’s God.
Does God ever say “Behold, I am doing a new thing!”?
I think God is capable in his Eternitude of expressing, and re-expressing the same idea. God doesn’t change in who he is as The Being, but he is quite capable of changing his eternal mind.
You’ve been misunderstanding what “Idea” means, I think.
A quick look at Idealism might better acquaint you with my train of thought.
May have been, might not have been.
Life-lasting-Life, is my translation of Aionios Zoe.
Surely you believe that there are at least some major existential differences between God and man. For example, I’m assuming you believe God is necessary and self-existent while man is contingent and dependent; that God has unlimited power, while man does not; that God is unlimited in knowledge, while man is not; that God is omnipresent, while man is not; that “God alone has immortality,” while man’s immortality must be derived from God. Assuming God’s being precedes matter and does not consist of some form or quality of matter, why can’t this aspect of God’s existence simply be just another example of how God and man differ existentially?
I believe that man is more like God than any other created thing on earth, since we alone bear God’s image and likeness. While both God and a living cat possess life, cats were not make in God’s image and likeness. So what, according to your view, does man have that a cat doesn’t have? If I’m not mistaken, you believe animals have what I think you’ve called “transcendent living souls” just as humans do, and that animals continue to exist as disembodied spiritual beings after death just as humans do. If that’s the case, then wouldn’t the “divine idea of a cat” and the cat itself be, to you, identical? It would seem that, according to your view, both the being of a cat and the being of a man are identical to the divine idea of a cat and the divine idea of a man, and that both have their source in God in essentially the same way. So what do you think differentiates the cat from the man insofar as divine image/likeness is concerned? How is man made in God’s image and likeness, while cats aren’t? According to your view, how exactly is a man a child of God while a cat isn’t?
If man’s being is identical to the divine idea of man, then do you think God’s being is identical to God’s idea of himself? Is God’s being and God’s idea of himself the same just as you think man’s being and the divine idea of man are the same? Wouldn’t this mean that God actually exists as a self-aware, conscious being in God’s own mind? If this doesn’t seem as absurd to you as it does to me, let’s take it even further. What about the idea of God which exists in the mind of the “first” idea of God? Or what about the idea of God which exists in the mind of the “second” idea of God (etc., ad infinitum)? But if God’s being is not identical to God’s idea of himself, then God doesn’t exist as his own idea. This would mean that God exists as something other than what you think man exists as (i.e., as a divine “idea”). Thus, even according to your view, God’s existence and man’s existence would be fundamentally different. Whatever you think God is, he wouldn’t be an “idea” like man, but would be something superior to (perhaps something more substantial and material than!) his own “ideas.”
I’m not sure I understand your point, but I’ll just add the following as a follow-up to my response above: If God is an immortal corporeal being constituted by the highest and most perfect form or quality of organized matter, then it would mean that matter (in some form or quality) is inseparable from (and thus coeternal with) God. Again, I’m not saying I necessarily believe this, but I don’t think it should be assumed not to be true, or dismissed just because it’s contrary to popular views on God.
Believe me, during our discussions on this topic I’ve been painfully aware of how strikingly similar your beliefs are to Platonism, with your emphasis on the “immortal, transcendent soul” (which you now refer to as a “divine idea”), the dualism you see between the immortal soul and matter, and (now) the soul’s pre-existence. As erroneous as I believe your views are, at least you’re trying to be consistent!
Yep, got it. But don’t you think the divine idea of man in his ideal and permanent state existed (and exists) in God’s mind?
Also, is “immortal, embodied man exists” and “the idea of immortal, embodied man exists” synonymous, in your belief? Or what about “matter exists” and “the idea of matter exists?” Are they synonymous in your belief? If not, why not?
I don’t believe a being or thing can actually, truly exist if God has no notion of the being or thing at all. As I’ve said, the divine idea of something is a precondition to its actually existing. For example, I believe that man in his ideal, permanent state (as an immortal, corporeal being) must be an idea in God’s mind before man in his ideal, permanent state can actually, truly exist. In this sense, man in his ideal, permanent state cannot “actually, truly exist” if God has no notion of him in this state. But this, of course, doesn’t mean the divine idea of immortal, embodied man is identical with immortal, embodied man himself.
What did you mean by this expression?
Do you think “time/space/dimensions” and matter pre-existed as ideas in God’s mind in an “actualized” sense? If not, please explain.
I believe being persons (and thus having a capacity to represent God as such) is essential to our being as humans, so no, I don’t think I’m “miscategorising the human child away from its God parent.” There are certain aspects of human existence which are radically different from God’s, but there are also certain aspects of our existence as humans that we share with God and which no other created thing on earth shares with either God or his human children (e.g., the capacity for rational self-awareness and the capacity to love).
I see. I was thinking that by “the creation” you were referring to that which God created as described in Genesis 1. And while I don’t consider myself a believer in Young Earth Creationism either, I don’t think Young Earth Creationist necessarily believe that God created only what he is stated as having created in Gen 1, either. I could be wrong, though.
So in other words, you “limit” only “some or more” ideas of God to possibly being “only conceptual.” But why would you even limit “some or more” as being possibly “only conceptual?” Are you saying that some ideas that come into objective existence can’t have existed as anything but conceptions in God’s mind? If not, why not believe that no divine idea is “only conceptual?” But let me guess: your position requires that you distinguish the divine idea of Man as a conscious self-aware being in an incorporeal state of existence (which, for you, must be more than “only conceptual”) from the idea of Man as a conscious, self-aware being in a corporeal state of existence (which, for you it would seem, must be “only conceptual”). If that’s not the case, please explain. Also, I was wondering what you see as the difference between the ideas that you don’t “limit” as being “only conceptual,” and the existence of everything that God spoke into objective existence (or in some other way gave objective existence to)? Or is there a difference?
I can’t help but see this as yet another evasive response from you. Since you believe “the idea of man” is a conscious, self-aware entity, this conscious, self-aware entity (which you believe is the “divine idea of man”) must be either a corporeal being or an incorporeal being. Which is it? If the “divine idea of man” is an incorporeal being, then why is man “expressed” by God as something different from the “divine idea?” Why would God think one thing (an incorporeal being) and actually create another (a corporeal being)? And wouldn’t the “divine idea of man” be the “ideal” rather than the “expression?” Why would a mere “expression” of the “divine idea of man” be God’s ideal for man? If corporeal existence was really the ideal for man, one would think that it would’ve been the actual “divine idea of man.”
The Last Supper by DaVinci is a 15th century mural painting in Milan. The idea of the Last Supper that existed conceptually in DaVinci’s mind before he created this work of art was just that: the idea of the Last Supper that existed conceptually in DaVinci’s mind. While the painting itself has actual, objective existence, the idea of the painting was a mental impression.
I’m not sure how denying that God thinks one thing and then actually does something else is “one-dimensionalising God.” If the divine idea of man is expressed as a corporeal being, then I think it’s quite reasonable to believe that the divine idea of man was and is man as a corporeal being.
Aaron:
That’s a big “if” there. You haven’t shown that finite beings can be alive and conscious apart from organized matter, nor have you even shown that the Supreme Being can be alive and conscious apart from organized matter of some kind. You’ve just taken it for granted as if it’s a given. But I’m not so sure that God isn’t a material/substantial Being (i.e., consisting of the highest and most perfect form or kind of matter in a perfectly organized, immortal form).
No; I’m open to the idea of God’s being a corporeal being consisting of the highest and most perfect form or kind of matter in a perfectly, organized, immortal form, and of his finite creation being existentially distinct from God and consisting of matter which, although derived from and having its source in God, exists in an inferior form or state.
Yeah, I agree that we’re at an impasse, and I think I may have to let this be my last response on this thread. We can both simply assert what we believe, but ultimately I think those who may be reading along will have to decide who is closer to the truth based on how well what we’re saying matches with what Scripture reveals. For example, does Scripture reveal that human beings pre-existed their earthly life as conscious, self-aware, immortal beings in an incorporeal state of existence? Or does Scripture instead reveal that no human being existed as a conscious, self-aware being until the sixth day of creation, when God formed Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the “breath of life?” Did man begin his existence as a “heavenly being” and then become an “earthly being?” Or did he begin his existence as an “earthly being” and will later become a “heavenly being?” Or, to put it another way, does Scripture reveal that, for man, the “spiritual” comes first and then the “natural?” Or is it the “natural” that comes first and then the “spiritual?” Obviously, I think it’s the latter that Scripture teaches (1 Cor 15:45-49).
Of course. But I think the “new thing” had to be an idea in God’s mind first. Everything that God does is, I believe, an idea before it finds expression in action (or at least the two are simultaneous). But I don’t think God ever thinks one thing and then does something else. That is, I don’t think it’s reasonable to believe (for example) that the divine idea which led to something’s being expressed as a corporeal being was the idea of it as an incorporeal being.
Let me repeat that last sentence for the sake of emphasis: I don’t think it’s reasonable to believe that the divine idea which led to something’s being expressed as a corporeal being was the idea of it as an incorporeal being.
Again, I think what God “expresses” must correspond to the idea of whatever he wants to express. If God expresses man as a mortal, corporeal being, then I think the idea to which the “expression” corresponds is the idea of man as a mortal, corporeal being. And if God expresses man as an immortal, corporeal being, then I think the idea to which the “expression” corresponds is the idea of man as an immortal, corporeal being.
It would seem so; one could say that we have different ideas of what “idea” means! But can you point me to where in this thread you’ve defined “idea,” or tried to define it for this discussion?
I think just a definition or two from you would’ve probably sufficed for the purpose of our discussion.
Alrighty then. Enjoyed the discussion. Till next time!
That akin to a Republican or Conservative toward a Democrat or Liberal. Though indeed I have such great disdain for his view (though certainly not for him personally), I should promptly thank him in part for the pillage I’ve gathered out of my own barns. 
All due respect given of course to this fellow. 
I don’t really involve myself in politics anymore - although I used to be a card-carrying Libertarian, and would still consider myself to have Libertarian leanings!)
But when those men who were actually inspired by God (such as Moses and Paul) refer to someone’s death (or their state after death) you argue that their perspective is not a “perfect representations of the actual events going on at death.” While I can see why it would be convenient for you to say that the perspective which Moses, Peter, Paul, Luke (etc.) were giving was not the “whole truth,” the problem is that your position does not merely require that their perspective was incomplete but rather that they were either mistaken (as I believe Saul and his companions were) or knowingly misrepresenting the facts. If the person “Adam,” for example, did not really return to the dust from which he was made, then what Moses quoted God (who certainly didn’t have a mere “earthly perspective”) as saying concerning Adam was not true but a misrepresentation of the facts concerning what really happened to Adam. And if the person “David” did not really “fall asleep,” was not really “laid with his fathers” and did not really “see corruption,” then what Paul said concerning David was not true but a misrepresentation of the facts concerning what really happened to David. If the person “Stephen” did not really fall asleep and was not really buried by devout men, then what Luke said concerning Stephen was not true and was a misrepresentation of the facts. Many more examples could be given where a person’s death is described in Scripture as if the inspired authors believed we really are constituted by our physical body, and that death really is the termination of life! But why not just take such verses at face value rather than assume that the perspective being given is inaccurate or “imperfect?” I mean, I take what Jesus said about the appearance of Moses and Elijah at face value when he explicitly called what his disciples experienced a “vision.”