Why is "belief" important?

[Sparko]

Does the Mormon belief that we will all become gods mean that we will become God, or that we will just be small g's (god's)? Also, do they believe that once we become gods, we will no longer be subject to God?

If someone believes we will get our own planet and have dominion over it, I can't really see that being a problem no more than (as Ronson suggests), believing that God is an old bearded dude living in the skies and makes bets with the devil.

There is no ultimate God in Mormanism. Even our God had a God before him who created him as a man. Basically they believe that when you become a god yourself, you will have your earthly wife with you in heaven, which is why they value marriage so much and won't divorce and used to have multiple wives. Then you and her will make spirit babies and send those babies to live in bodies on your planet. That's how souls are made. If you are a good Mormon you will get your own planet. If you are not so good you get to serve one of the god Mormons, and if you are saved but not a good mormon you get to live in a lower heaven, basically a trailer park heaven where you won't have much but hey it's still heaven. Only the very worst end up in hell.

The problem with it is that it has no basis in reality. Following that religion and expecting to be saved is no better than believing God is an alien or something.

Guys, the fact that you two can't seem to understand why it is important to believe the truth about God and the true gospel is worrying. This is basic Christianity.
The reason you have to believe in the truth is that we are sinners and Jesus came to die for our sins and without knowing that and believing in his sacrifice you can't accept his gift of salvation. That is why he came to earth in the first place. If it didn't matter what anyone believed and God could just poof everyone into heaven no matter what they believed then he would have done that and not made Jesus die on the cross. But it doesn't work that way.

God can't dismiss sin. He is a Just God. Sin must be punished. Evil must be punished. Which means each and everyone of us deserves to go to hell because we are sinners. But God is also a God of Love and Mercy and Grace. So rather than just sending all of us to hell, he himself came down as a man, lived a sinless life, then paid for our sins himself on the cross, himself being completely righteous and sinless. All he asks is that we accept his gift and devote our lives to him and he will send us the Holy Spirit to help us and gives us eternal life with him. Basically the human race has to choose sides. We either remain on the side of sin and death, or we choose the side of God and he covers our sin with the blood of Jesus. Jesus' righteousness is credited to our account and our sin is washed away.

That is why it is necessary to KNOW the truth which the bible reveals to us. And not believe in some fantasy that we can become gods or other nonsense. It is also necessary to understand that Jesus was not a mere human being but God the Son himself who came down from heaven to save us. That is why believing the trinity is important. A mere human could only save himself, not everyone.

You really should read the book of Romans. It explains it all pretty well. And if you have not given yourself to the real Jesus, or didn't know what you were actually doing, I urge you to find out and then pray to Jesus to save you and thank him for his sacrifice. Choose Jesus. Choose God.

[Sparko]

PS, you do need to affirm and believe the Trinity, but you don't have to understand it. You can believe your car will drive you to work without understanding how it works.

Basically all you need to believe is that Jesus the Son is God, that the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. That there is only ONE God but he is revealed in 3 distinct persons. Each is fully God but a distinct person. You don't have to know HOW that can be only that is what the bible teaches. In various place it calls the Father "God", Jesus "God" and the Holy Spirit "God" - and it also says there is only one God. And we see Jesus talking to the Father and talking about the Holy Spirit as another counselor. So they are not the same person.

You don't have to understand all the technical details people have come up with over the centuries, like hypostasis, etc.

But the reason you do have to believe it is
1. That is what the bible teaches about God's nature.
2. Only God himself could pay for our sins on the cross, not a mere human being.

I think you can be ignorant of the trinity and still be saved but you can't believe in a completely false Jesus and be saved. The Jehovah's Witnesses for example, deny the trinity and claim that Jesus is the incarnation of the arch angel Michael. A completely false Jesus. An Angel can't save you. You can't give your life to a false idea and expect to be saved.

[Sparko]

One more suggestion: Read CS Lewis' Mere Christianity. When I first became a Christian I had a lot of the same questions you guys are tossing out, and this book seemed to answer all of them.

It is available free as PDF and ebooks here:

https://fb2bookfree.com/childrens/11...istianity.html

[Cow Poke]

PS, you do need to affirm and believe the Trinity,....

But!!!!

I think you can be ignorant of the trinity and still be saved...

Yes!

[Ronson]

One more suggestion: Read CS Lewis' Mere Christianity. When I first became a Christian I had a lot of the same questions you guys are tossing out, and this book seemed to answer all of them.

It is available free as PDF and ebooks here:

https://fb2bookfree.com/childrens/11...istianity.html

I did read this and a couple other CS Lewis books many years ago.

I did want to acknowledge your other posts but I'm not sure how to respond. They are statements of faith and asserting the importance of faith, but my questions remain unanswered. Faith has to be based on something; on experience ("if I drop a hammer") or reason or some other solid foundation. Catholics place their faith in the various pontiffs that come and go, which I find as problematic as placing faith in certain scriptures.

[Sparko]

I did read this and a couple other CS Lewis books many years ago.

I did want to acknowledge your other posts but I'm not sure how to respond. They are statements of faith and asserting the importance of faith, but my questions remain unanswered. Faith has to be based on something; on experience ("if I drop a hammer") or reason or some other solid foundation. Catholics place their faith in the various pontiffs that come and go, which I find as problematic as placing faith in certain scriptures.

Faith is based on hearing/reading the word and believing and trusting it. That is where your rejection of inerrancy comes into play. If you can't trust that the bible is a true report of the past actions and future prophesies of God acting in the world then you indeed have a problem. Everyone knows that the copies we have are not perfect copies of the originals, because we have multiple transcripts with variants. But we do believe that God inspired the authors to write what they wrote and that the originals are an accurate depiction of what God wanted them to write. And we have ways of comparing variants and finding out what errors have crept into the text and know with a large degree of certainty what the originals did say (a field call Textual Criticism). And there are so many copies that this is fairly easy to do.

For example, let's say you have 2 copies of a book and the original is gone.

On page one it says "Bob went downtown and met Sally for lunch at Arby's" and the other says "Bob went downtown and met Sam for dinner" - you can't be sure which is true. But let's say you have 100 copies. 50 say ""Bob went downtown and met Sally for lunch at Arby's", 3 say "Bob went downtown and met Sam for dinner" and the several say variations of the first like "Bob drove downtown and met Sally for dinner", "Bob went downtown and met Sal for lunch at Arby's", "Bab went down-town and met Sally for lunch at Arby's" "Bob went to the city and met Sally for lunch at Arby's" etc. Then you can be pretty sure the original said, "Bob went downtown and met Sally for lunch at Arby's"

We have thousands of copies of the NT scriptures, some whole some partial, but using textual criticism we can be pretty sure what the originals said. And we trust that the originals are the truth and accurate. So we can put our faith in what they say.

If you can't trust the scriptures then you indeed have nothing to base your faith on. Even if God did a miracle in your life you would still not have any basis for knowing who God truly is or about Jesus without the scriptures.

[Machinist]

That is where your rejection of inerrancy comes into play

It's not so much a question as to the originals. I have looked at certain passages to the nth degree and read extensively on apologetic arguments pro and con, only to conclude that the evidence for some things are lacking. For an example, I do not believe that Isaiah chapter 7 is referring to Jesus in the least. . (Now I would not accuse the author of Matthew as being deceptive, just a little over zealous). Saying someone is rejecting the Doctrine of Inerrancy creates a category that doesn't exist until the Doctrine of Inerrancy is instituted as an official church doctrine. If one doesn't buy certain apologetic arguments, then they don't buy them. What else can one do but to conclude that the bible is not free or error? I've only read a fraction of the entire Bible, but to my knowledge, I don't think the bible references itself as a whole, nor does it say anywhere that believing the inerrancy of it is a prerequisite. One can honestly look at a certain passage, story, etc, and honestly conclude whether it seems to them fabricated, tampered with, or just over hyped.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I avoid overly speculating on what Heaven will be like. I think I'll spend the first million years or so just walking around saying "WOW".

I agree. It certainly won't be like our current world. I'll you're walking around, stop by and say hello. I expect to be in the school in remedial classes for that first million years or so.

[Sparko]

That is where your rejection of inerrancy comes into play

It's not so much a question as to the originals. I have looked at certain passages to the nth degree and read extensively on apologetic arguments pro and con, only to conclude that the evidence for some things are lacking. For an example, I do not believe that Isaiah chapter 7 is referring to Jesus in the least. . (Now I would not accuse the author of Matthew as being deceptive, just a little over zealous). Saying someone is rejecting the Doctrine of Inerrancy creates a category that doesn't exist until the Doctrine of Inerrancy is instituted as an official church doctrine. If one doesn't buy certain apologetic arguments, then they don't buy them. What else can one do but to conclude that the bible is not free or error? I've only read a fraction of the entire Bible, but to my knowledge, I don't think the bible references itself as a whole, nor does it say anywhere that believing the inerrancy of it is a prerequisite. One can honestly look at a certain passage, story, etc, and honestly conclude whether it seems to them fabricated, tampered with, or just over hyped.

Well maybe you should start with reading the whole bible then, like a book from start to end. You owe yourself at least that much effort.

[Ronson]

Faith is based on hearing/reading the word and believing and trusting it. That is where your rejection of inerrancy comes into play. If you can't trust that the bible is a true report of the past actions and future prophesies of God acting in the world then you indeed have a problem.

A lot of books have been written through the ages; most where authors are not in doubt. For me to "believe and trust" anonymous writings out of antiquity is a leap of faith I cannot make, no matter how hard I try. I may just as well "believe and trust" in the Vedas or the Tipitaka. I do not believe in inerrancy because of contradiction. As you say above, as depicted in scripture, He is the "God of Love and Mercy and Grace", and then there are passages where Joshua is allegedly instructed by God to kill all the men, women and children of Jericho. The two do not jibe, so either one or both are wrong; they cannot both be true. I choose the latter to be wrong. Why? Because my mercy cannot be greater than God's, and I would not slaughter women or children (or even the men who surrendered in war).

This is my cause to disbelieve in inerrancy. Arguments supporting inerrancy sound more like tapdancing and doubletalk to me.

Everyone knows that the copies we have are not perfect copies of the originals, because we have multiple transcripts with variants. But we do believe that God inspired the authors to write what they wrote and that the originals are an accurate depiction of what God wanted them to write. And we have ways of comparing variants and finding out what errors have crept into the text and know with a large degree of certainty what the originals did say (a field call Textual Criticism). And there are so many copies that this is fairly easy to do.

If this is such an important feature for God, wouldn't He have made it impossible for errors to creep in? Why does mankind have to fix them?

For example, let's say you have 2 copies of a book and the original is gone.

On page one it says "Bob went downtown and met Sally for lunch at Arby's" and the other says "Bob went downtown and met Sam for dinner" - you can't be sure which is true. But let's say you have 100 copies. 50 say ""Bob went downtown and met Sally for lunch at Arby's", 3 say "Bob went downtown and met Sam for dinner" and the several say variations of the first like "Bob drove downtown and met Sally for dinner", "Bob went downtown and met Sal for lunch at Arby's", "Bab went down-town and met Sally for lunch at Arby's" "Bob went to the city and met Sally for lunch at Arby's" etc. Then you can be pretty sure the original said, "Bob went downtown and met Sally for lunch at Arby's"

We have thousands of copies of the NT scriptures, some whole some partial, but using textual criticism we can be pretty sure what the originals said. And we trust that the originals are the truth and accurate. So we can put our faith in what they say.

If you can't trust the scriptures then you indeed have nothing to base your faith on. Even if God did a miracle in your life you would still not have any basis for knowing who God truly is or about Jesus without the scriptures.

My brother and I experienced spiritual revelation while watching a sermon by Hal Lindsay. At the time, we both figured that Lindsay's fundamentals must be correct for him to be a conduit for God. And then Lindsay went on to predict the end times - incorrectly - over and over again while peddling his faulty books. So we changed our view to that God must not be terribly concerned with details. Mankind is never going to get it right without errors, so why spend a lifetime drawing lines between those errors? Timothy (?) is the one who tells us that all of scripture is inspired by God. Timothy wrote this, God did not write it.

[Machinist]

You just got to read things and try your best to study and not begin with a conclusion. Ask God to guide your reasoning and understanding. Of course you may end up at a different conclusion about things than the next person who is also giving their all in pursuing truth, from their own unique map of reality. Not clinging to your conclusion is also something very important in the process.

[Ronson]

You just got to read things and try your best to study and not begin with a conclusion. Ask God to guide your reasoning and understanding. Of course you may end up at a different conclusion about things than the next person who is also giving their all in pursuing truth, from their own unique map of reality. Not clinging to your conclusion is also something very important in the process.

I agree. We start out with preconceived conclusions because we are taught "this is the way it is," and then what we read is forced into that box. And in the early church (before and after the ecumenical councils decided what is proper scripture, what isn't and should be discarded, and what it all means) Christians were mostly illiterates and depended on these people for interpretation. Now that we are not illiterates, I do not feel bound to have anyone interpret simple texts for me (granted, some passages are vague due to translation and require assistance).

[Sparko]

A lot of books have been written through the ages; most where authors are not in doubt. For me to "believe and trust" anonymous writings out of antiquity is a leap of faith I cannot make, no matter how hard I try. I may just as well "believe and trust" in the Vedas or the Tipitaka. I do not believe in inerrancy because of contradiction. As you say above, as depicted in scripture, He is the "God of Love and Mercy and Grace", and then there are passages where Joshua is allegedly instructed by God to kill all the men, women and children of Jericho. The two do not jibe, so either one or both are wrong; they cannot both be true. I choose the latter to be wrong. Why? Because my mercy cannot be greater than God's, and I would not slaughter women or children (or even the men who surrendered in war).

This is my cause to disbelieve in inerrancy. Arguments supporting inerrancy sound more like tapdancing and doubletalk to me.



If this is such an important feature for God, wouldn't He have made it impossible for errors to creep in? Why does mankind have to fix them?

As I said, we do know what the errors are to a very high degree (95+%) and where we are not sure, most modern translations will have footnotes on it, and I don't know of any such errors in any important doctrines or passages. God works though people. He used people to write the scriptures and he uses people to keep them free from error.

My brother and I experienced spiritual revelation while watching a sermon by Hal Lindsay. At the time, we both figured that Lindsay's fundamentals must be correct for him to be a conduit for God. And then Lindsay went on to predict the end times - incorrectly - over and over again while peddling his faulty books. So we changed our view to that God must not be terribly concerned with details. Mankind is never going to get it right without errors, so why spend a lifetime drawing lines between those errors? Timothy (?) is the one who tells us that all of scripture is inspired by God. Timothy wrote this, God did not write it.

Hal Lindsay is a fallen human being just like all of us.

And actually Paul wrote it TO Timothy.

So what do you believe about God, Jesus and Christianity? And why? If you don't trust scripture where do you get the knowledge you do believe?

[Ronson]

As I said, we do know what the errors are to a very high degree (95+%) and where we are not sure, most modern translations will have footnotes on it, and I don't know of any such errors in any important doctrines or passages. God works though people. He used people to write the scriptures and he uses people to keep them free from error.

Hal Lindsay is a fallen human being just like all of us.

And actually Paul wrote it TO Timothy.

So what do you believe about God, Jesus and Christianity? And why? If you don't trust scripture where do you get the knowledge you do believe?

Have you ever read Flatland by Edwin Abbott? Although the story is meant as an examination of social hierarchy, it also deals with mankind's (mostly) inability to fathom anything beyond our experience. Two dimensional beings visiting a one-dimensional world, and three-dimensional beings visiting a two-dimensional world, and each time they cannot be properly perceived by those seeing them.

It always comes to mind when I think about the depiction of God in scripture. God has more dimensions than we can grasp. The Bible attempts to define God - divinely inspired or not - but it comes out contradictory and muddled. Too many books written by too many authors, some making more sense than others.

Although I believe Christianity is the closest, most sensible explanation of God's nature, it is bound to be imperfect, like any attempt would be. But I also don't see the point of "belief" in any case, because "belief" is a function of our physical brain. Experience a brain injury, and you will quite possibly "believe" in something totally different. So why would God be so concerned about any person's "belief" when it is conditioned by so many external pressures that we have no control over? If you were born in Burma and had been raised by Buddhist monks, do you really believe you would be a Christian today?

[tabibito]

That is where your rejection of inerrancy comes into play

It's not so much a question as to the originals. I have looked at certain passages to the nth degree and read extensively on apologetic arguments pro and con, only to conclude that the evidence for some things are lacking. For an example, I do not believe that Isaiah chapter 7 is referring to Jesus in the least. . (Now I would not accuse the author of Matthew as being deceptive, just a little over zealous). Saying someone is rejecting the Doctrine of Inerrancy creates a category that doesn't exist until the Doctrine of Inerrancy is instituted as an official church doctrine. If one doesn't buy certain apologetic arguments, then they don't buy them. What else can one do but to conclude that the bible is not free or error? I've only read a fraction of the entire Bible, but to my knowledge, I don't think the bible references itself as a whole, nor does it say anywhere that believing the inerrancy of it is a prerequisite. One can honestly look at a certain passage, story, etc, and honestly conclude whether it seems to them fabricated, tampered with, or just over hyped.

Is it not possible that a prophecy directed at the whole "House of David," involving a young woman's pregnancy as a sign from God, is in fact a prophecy of the advent of Christ?
The pregnancy itself is a sign from God - which kind of rules out a pregnancy arising from natural means.