Foot Hurts

The Emotional God

2007-12-04T10:55:00.001-05:00

It struck me this time when reading the account of 3 Ne 17 that our relationship to God is like our relationship to others. I've been contemplating alot about emotions lately, and what there purpose and effects are. I'm not sure I have the answer to that question, but I did come across one interesting realization.

The chapter begins with the following:

1 Behold, now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he looked round about again on the multitude, and he said unto them: Behold, my ^atime is at hand.
2 I ^aperceive that ye are weak, that ye cannot ^bunderstand all my words which I am commanded of the Father to speak unto you at this time.
3 Therefore, go ye unto your homes, and ^aponder upon the things which I have said, and ask of the Father, in my name, that ye may understand, and ^bprepare your minds for the ^cmorrow, and I come unto you again.
4 But now I ^ago unto the Father, and also to ^bshow myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not ^clost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them.

So, it seems like any day. I could even do the same thing. Not that I am like Jesus, but that I recognize a similar situation in myself. I might be aware of the circumstance of people's life. I am often aware that everyone theoretically has problems, but the question is when do I actually act so as to help people with their problems, instead of just leaving them to deal with it alone. I am not looking for an answer that has to do so much with personality, but with human nature.

The next several verses are revealing:

5 And it came to pass that when Jesus had thus spoken, he cast his eyes round about again on the multitude, and beheld they were ^ain tears, and did look steadfastly upon him as if they would ask him to tarry a little longer with them.
6 And he said unto them: Behold, my bowels are filled with ^acompassion towards you.
7 Have ye any that are ^asick among you? Bring them hither. Have ye any that are lame, or blind, or halt, or maimed, or ^bleprous, or that are withered, or that are deaf, or that are afflicted in any manner? Bring them hither and I will ^cheal them, for I have compassion upon you; my bowels are filled with mercy.
8 For I perceive that ye desire that I should show unto you what I have done unto your brethren at Jerusalem, for I see that your ^afaith is ^bsufficient that I should heal you.

At this moment, it appears that Jesus is moved to act by an emotional reaction to the circumstances. I figured, hey, If I could figure out exactly what these circumstances are in a general sort of fashion, then maybe I can learn to predict when God and others will be moved to act also in my behalf. I would certainly like to know what it takes to get God to act with compassion upon me. As far as I can tell, the moment comes down to the following:

1. a sincere outward expression of desire for a specific person to "tarry" and "heal"
2. a sincere inward desire that causes the outward expression
3. The expression must be enough to evoke emotion.
4. I would presume the depth of the emotion evoked must to some degree correlate to the reality of the pain experienced.
5. In this case, the pain was actually more of a yearning... a sincere and yet moving desire, for God to tarry and heal them.
6. The yearning was probably evoked in the people by the physical presence of Jesus
7. Finally, the evocation of this expression in the people, was dependent on faith that he could actually do something for them.

I'm not sure what to do with all this information. But it seems evident, that God's emotions can be evoked in our behalf and that this emotional causality is what causes him to act in our lives.

Any thoughts?

Comparing Lehi and Thomas Aquinas

2007-11-16T11:06:00.000-05:00

so.. there is a few passages in the Book of Mormon that haunt me. Not because there bad, but they are so dense.. that i loose sleep over them. So here is one

Lets try... all of 2 Nephi 2.... but i rediscovered today the logic of part of this argument

He says in verse 13, If there was no law ---> x ---> y ---> z ... etc..

This is a chain of if, then statements which points out a number of interesting things. The most interesting to me are the facts that 1) he concludes there would be no God. Then, supposing there is no God, he creates a chain of statements, that lead to the conclusion that 2) we would not even be able to act.

I find this argument highly intriguing. To really analyze the argument, let me enumerate the premises of verse 13: (~ means "not", and a-->b is standard notation for "if a, then b")

Argument 1
~ Law --> ~ Sin
~ Sin --> ~ Righteousness
~ Righteousness --> ~ Happiness

Argument 2
~ Righteousness AND ~ Happiness --> ~ Punishment AND ~Misery
~ "These Things" --> ~ God (he probably means all four from last premise)

Argument 3
~ God --> ~ us AND ~ earth
~ God --> ~ Creation
~ Creation --> ~ Creation of things (to act or be acted upon)

Lets focus on argument 2:
To simplify...lets ignore the righteousness and punishment aspects (these lofty ideas aren't really important here).. then lets apply some logical magic (~a -->~b is the same as b --> a)

If there is Misery --> Then, there is Happiness
If God --> Misery and Happiness
Who would not say there is misery? no reasonable person. But unfortunately, the logic evades making a direct proof of God.. Even after switching it around, you still get "If God" ... what i want is "If happiness and misery, then God".. what we need is a statement that starts with "if not God" and that leads to an absurdity .... dag yo.

Lets look at argument 3.. it is more promising.. we switch it to:
If we exist --> God
Or, alternatively
If things can act and be acted upon --> Creation
If there was a creation --> God

This is no new argument. It sounds like a simplified version of Thomas Aquinas's Five ways... more especially the first three. If you are interested in them, you should also do some research on Aristotle's four causes and infinite regress (which i wrote a paper on.. maybe i'll post it later... but really, this is only for the hard core geeks)

Let me just touch on argument 1 for a minute...

I like this argument.. if we tightened it up we might say:
If Happiness --> There is a law

From before, we know that if you believe in misery, you have to believe in happiness. (i focus on misery, because the people who are more likely to happiness, are less likely to deny misery). This raises the question... where did the law come from?

This goes back into argument 3
~God --> ~ Creation (though Lehi only seems to mention physical creation)
I would extend that to write
~God --> ~ Law ,
Law --> God.
This is the same as Aquinas's fifth way (or argument from design)

2007-10-21T23:03:00.000-04:00

Give me about a week.. and i'll try to put something interesting on here....

Something worth saying

2006-05-26T16:11:00.000-04:00

I'm tired, and my foot hurts.