Comments on: One God

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:03:03 +0000

Hmmm… I think you might be right Matt.

By: Matt W.

Matt W. — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:48:32 +0000

Actually, Geoff, isn’t Randy basically agreeing with the idea of a non-time travelling God(or non-timeless God) by saying there is no past or future for anyone? Isn’t Rany basically saying only that time travel is impossible as then either does not yet exist or no longer exists, and we are stuck in “one eternal now”?

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:38:18 +0000

Randy Ugay, You are long on assertions and short on supporting evidence. I wouldn't mind so much if you weren't wrong in your assertions. God does live in time if God has a body. See a post on that subject here.

By: Randy Ugay

Randy Ugay — Fri, 22 May 2009 10:12:00 +0000

Tom: whether in or out of time

There is no physical time in which God exists. Time is just a parameter of change. There is no physical past and future. No arrow of time. Only the ever changing present.

God uses the expressions of “time” in the scriptures which is what we call as historical time (tau coordinate in physics-an evolution parameter)to map out our historical sense and “future” events. In other words, time is an abstract measurement of change. In the fundamental level of things, it’s all particles, their properties and their interactions-the rest, perceptual illusions. Nobody has observed time because simply there is no physical time.

By: Matt W.

Matt W. — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:38:50 +0000

Thanks Clark, I’d really appreciate it. I will try and get to a computer that has Gospellink on it and dig up the 70s manuals.

By: clark

clark — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:12:16 +0000

Matt, he says this in the 70′s Course a few places. There was a discussion of this and his use of William James (whom I vaguely recall him getting his argument from) over at JI earlier this year.

I’ll see if I can’t look it up when I get back from Idaho.

By: Matt W.

Matt W. — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:32:21 +0000

he couldnâ€™t see the mind as material

Clark, can you give me a reference on this?

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:29:46 +0000

I happen to think the difference between Christ’s references to “my Father” and “the Father” are significant – in that the former probably refers more particularly to his Father and the latter more particularly to the divine concert as a whole.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:19:40 +0000

I should mention that the Cartesian dualism thing Clark brought up is an interesting point about Roberts. Joseph had pushed hard toward a materialism but Roberts did an end run around the “there is no immaterial matter” talk with his idea of totally immaterial floating minds called “intelligences”.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:16:54 +0000

I think it is entirely possible that when Jesus referred to his Father he wasn't talking about any individual but rather the One God (read: the great divine concert). Having said that, we know that individual divine beings can be referred to as "God" even though they aren't the One God by themselves. For instance we get this verse:

34 Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?

So I don't think it is a problem that in the vision JS had in 1820 he saw two personages. This divine investiture notion could be employed to bridge that gap as you mentioned.