Mormon Trinity

[Cerebrum123]

So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?

-7up

Not anymore than He can make a square circle, or a married bachelor. Aren't you in agreement that God can't do logically impossible things?

[Christianbookworm]

Not anymore than He can make a square circle, or a married bachelor. Aren't you in agreement that God can't do logically impossible things?

I don't think the Mormon god is as powerful as the Christian God. We're talking about a Being that exists outside of space and time and can make what he wants to exist be real. We can't do that. We can make up worlds and characters but can't give them free will or an existence outside of our imaginations and various forms of media and books.

[Sparko]

So what's to prevent an evil intelligence from becoming a God and creating their own world to rule?

[Cerebrum123]

I don't think the Mormon god is as powerful as the Christian God. We're talking about a Being that exists outside of space and time and can make what he wants to exist be real. We can't do that. We can make up worlds and characters but can't give them free will or an existence outside of our imaginations and various forms of media and books.

Yeah, the thing is 7up is trying to say that if God can't make people powerful like Him, then He's not omnipotent. Which is the same kind of arguments you get with square circles and such. It's a misunderstanding of what God's omnipotence entails, and I know that 7up realizes this as far as logical impossibilities, he just needs to realize that more than one God is such a logical impossibility(the Trinity not being three Gods is not subject to this by it's nature).

[Christianbookworm]

So what's to prevent an evil intelligence from becoming a God and creating their own world to rule?

Apokolips? I'm sorry. Just that that''s what I think of when I hear evil god with their own planet. Maybe I watched too many DCAU cartoons...

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, the thing is 7up is trying to say that if God can't make people powerful like Him, then He's not omnipotent. Which is the same kind of arguments you get with square circles and such. It's a misunderstanding of what God's omnipotence entails, and I know that 7up realizes this as far as logical impossibilities, he just needs to realize that more than one God is such a logical impossibility(the Trinity not being three Gods is not subject to this by it's nature).

I think it's more than that - I think it's asking God to do something SILLY and unnecessary, not just logically impossible -- God is ALL POWERFUL, why would He NEED to create a bunch of mini-me Gods?

It's just DUMB, and came from Smith's twisted imagination.

[Cerebrum123]

I think it's more than that - I think it's asking God to do something SILLY and unnecessary, not just logically impossible -- God is ALL POWERFUL, why would He NEED to create a bunch of mini-me Gods?

It's just DUMB, and came from Smith's twisted imagination.

Well, some could take Gideon's "fleece test" as "silly and unnecessary". So I don't see that as a real objection to what God would, or wouldn't do.

[Cow Poke]

Well, some could take Gideon's "fleece test" as "silly and unnecessary". So I don't see that as a real objection to what God would, or wouldn't do.

The fleece test had a purpose. Creating additional "all powerful beings" does not. It's both dumb and redundant.

[seven7up]

7UP: I agree that Jesus is "fully God". Because "Deity" / Godhood includes the concept of authority.

That is a consequence of deity, not the creator of it.

7UP: Authority had to be given to the Son.

When was it given? And did that suddenly make Him God?

Before the creation of the physical universe. Jesus was spiritually perfect, but without the highest authority. Jesus did not have the title of God until the Father bestowed it and the authority upon him.

7UP: Yes. It was given to lawmakers in the Israelite nation and by that God given authority they were then called "gods." Authority was given to Moses by God in order for Moses to become a "god unto Pharaoh".

Elohim simply meant one with authority over another. That's why Nineveh is called an elohim city because it was where the authority for the Neo-Assyrian Empire was.

So, you agree that bestowing authority upon another is an important aspect of what merits the title of elohim/god.

7UP: In Mormonism, Jesus was called from among his fellows, (i.e. the sons of God, the sons of the morning, the morning stars). He was chosen and anointed, and thus "became better than the angels, and inherited a more excellent name than they." (Heb 1).

When?

Jesus was chosen/foreordained before the creation of the physical universe: To be the Creator, to be the Savior, to be the first in the resurrection; to be the primary heir of the Father's kingdom, etc.

7UP: There IS NO "ontological divide".

But there IS between God and us.

There is a divide between God and us, but it has to do with power, authority, spiritual perfection, morality, wisdom, immortality, knowledge, etc. It is not an ontological divide in the sense that you imply. The sense that you imply would make the very person of Jesus Christ, who is both fully Deity and fully man, a logical contradiction. Your assertion undermines the very foundation of Christianity.

7UP: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?

Logical contradictions are just that. Your God can't make a square circle either, so he isn't omnipotent.

We agree that there are logical contradictions. We disagree about what concepts are logically contradictory.

7UP: All you have are strawmen. Sometimes you act like a modalist, and sometimes you act like a Tritheist. Bob and weave Bill, bob and weave.

Can't handle the actual doctrines of Trinitarianism, so run and hide while claiming victory. Classic loonie tunes behavior.

No need to run and hide. I can point out the errors of the doctrines of Trinitarianism in the open.

“The Christian idea of the Trinity may be summed up in the familiar words: ‘The
Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not
three Gods, but one God. The Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. And in this
Trinity none is afore or after other: none is greater or less than another, but
the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.’”
(Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, Trinity, by W. H. Griffith Thomas, pg 949).

“It [the Trinity] signifies that within the one essence of the Godhead we have to
distinguish three ‘persons’ who are neither three gods on the one side, not three
parts or modes of God on the other, but coequally and coeternally God.”
(Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, ed. Harrison, Bromiley, and Henry,The Trinity, by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, pg 531).

Yay!! He can use google!!

Quite useful.

7UP; I agree that the Godhead has 3 persons who act as the governing officers in "one government". That is not where I take issue with your position. I disagree with your assertion that these three persons are literally the same "Being/substance/essence". In the Biblical text, the Son is called the image/copy/imprint of the Father's person. The Trinity dogma goes well beyond that concept. Now, I will say that the relatively recent adoption of "3 centers of consciousness" in Trinitarian thought is a step in the right direction, but you still hold to unbiblical concepts which were adapted into the creeds.

No I don't. You are the one that holds to completely unbiblical polytheism.

I simply accept the Biblical sense of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being "One". It is not one literal and metaphysical spirit essence that is actually omnipresent. The scriptures do not support that.

7up: Jesus had the characteristics of Deity from eternity, yet he was not yet "GOD" because before he created the Universe, he had to be "called" "anointed" "chosen".

So, one can be deity, but not deity... riiight....

Someone may have all of the knowledge and skill of a doctor, but you cannot legally practice without the authority to do so.

7UP: God the Father had to officially recognize the Deity of Jesus.

Now we are talking complete and utter spin doctoring.

7UP: He had to be GIVEN authority by the Father and thus take his place at the Father's right hand into Godhood and act in the Father's name.

Jesus was not told to sit at the Father's Right Hand until after His ascension. Do you REALLY want to continue with that load of crap?

Jesus was returning to the His place at the Father's right hand. He was going back to the glorious position that Had with the Father prior to the incarnation.

7up; However, does your definition of "God" require the concept of power and authority? We see that power and authority is "given" from the Father to the Son.

At what point was it given to the Holy Spirit? Or is He not really God now?

Not much information given about the Holy Spirit.

7UP: So, are you saying that each person in the Godhead is only 1/3 of a God?

No. That's what I am saying that YOU are claiming with your retarded examples. They are straw. Plain and simple.

7UP: This is not the first time you made this assertion in our conversation together. You have no choice but to contradict yourself. My example of 3 glasses of water still stands, because each person is FULLY God.

If each were NOT fully God, then you could cut one off and then only be left with 2/3 of the original size of God.

You are affected by the mindset that God has a "size".

And if I drink one, there now exists only 2/3 of the total amount of water, meaning LESS water, or LESS God.

That only affects the water/glass that you drank. The other two remain full glasses of water, each being fully Deity/God. We would be missing the relationship that once existed with the person that was no longer there, but that does not make the other two any less Deity, because each is fully Deity.


-7up

[seven7up]

7UP: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?

So, you saw how nutty it was, and decided to call it "tongue in cheek"?

It isn't nutty. Bill claims that there is an ontological divide between God and man, which is what makes it impossible for man to be like God. However, God is omnipotent enough to become man, and this breaks down the dogma of the ontological divide. So, then the Trinitarian may just say that God is omnipotent enough to make it happen one way, but not the other. Hardly a consistent viewpoint.

7UP: Of all the titles that God may have, his preferred title is as our "Father".
As a father, I want my son to grow up to be a successful person. I don't need him to be successful, but I want him to be. I want him to have a career, get married, have children, etc. I want my children to have all that I have. In a certain sense, I am not successful if my son does not obtain these goals.

So, YOUR will trumps GOD'S will? What if God had other plans for him? What if God, for example, called him to be a missionary to a leper colony, where he served the Lord, but died poor and homeless? Then YOU are "not successful"? That's just downright asinine.

A missionary to a leper colony IS a success. You entirely missed the point . I am talking about God wanting us to be successful; to be like Him. Just like a mortal father wants their children to grow up, and gain the good characteristics that the father has.

7up; So, what are you trying to argue, Cow Poke? That God cannot make us what He is?

God is sovereign. He can do ANYTHING He wants, at any time.

So, are you saying that, unlike Bill, you believe that God COULD create divine beings, but refuses to and purposefully creates inferior beings; and then plans to punish the grand majority of them for because they are created inferior.

Can you think of any philosophical dilemmas that may arise from this viewpoint?

7UP: That God doesn't want us to live the kind of life that God lives?

Your thinking is WAY too scrambled to run a planet or world or cosmos or whatever it is you think you'll eventually run.

Maybe God just purposefully created you to be too inferior to understand the points being made.

-7up

[seven7up]

7UP: Here is a good article for you:

THE LOGIC OF BIBLICAL ANTHROPOMORPHISM
The Harvard Theological Review (Vol. 55, 1962)
By: E. La B. Cherbonnier
http://www.philosophy-religion.org/c...ogic-bible.htm

As JP said to Kevin Graham about Kevin's use of Cherbonnier:
Quote Originally Posted by JP Holding
As noted in my book, Cherbonnier never stumped for the "physical body" aspect of this. I have no problem with the sort of anthropomorphism he did stump for (God has feelings, reacts, etc.

JP Holding is holding back on the implication of Cherbonnier's arguments, and so are you. The link is there for anyone to read and I invite them to do so. While this scholar still may hold to a kind of Ex Nihilo creation theology, he certainly argues many steps away from the view of God described by the creeds, and far closer to the view of God described by the Mormons.

Cherbonnier debunks the idea of God being literally "infinite"/"unlimited"/"unknowable"/"indescribable"/"omnipresent" spirit essence as described by Trinitarian views, which were adapted from the "god of the philosophers" in Greek/Roman culture. In other words, the Trinitarians in "classic theism" were far too heavily influenced by philosophical monism. He calls this the "mystic" view of God, which is not Biblical at all:

Here is a good example from the text:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5) In what sense is God invisible?

On one point, at least, mystic and prophet do seem to agree. Both speak of God as invisible. Once more, however, their agreement is apparent only. It dissolves in the light of the distinction between de jure and de facto. For the mystic, God so completely transcends the spatio-temporal world that the "finite" categories of seeing, hearing, and touching simply do not apply (except, perhaps, in some highly metaphorical sense). Such a God is invisible in principle.

The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself: to Moses (Ex. 33:23), to the elders of Israel (Ex. 24: 10), to Isaiah (Is. 6: 1). St. John quite consistently refers to "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life . . ." (I Jn. 1 : 1 ).

That is, God retains the freedom to show himself or to withhold his face at will. As Rudolf Bultmann observes,

God is not invisible to the senses as a matter of principle. Indeed, Hebrew has no word for ‘invisible.’ God is invisible because he wills to be so."15

Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him. The tendency to dissociate, to become a voyeur, is overcome only when men are as trustworthy as God. For most men, the vision of God will be postponed until we are perfected in love. In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also note how he criticizes the idea of God which is supposedly "timeless" or "immutable" in some kind of metaphysical sense, or that somehow God "must be altogether beyond the realm of change and becoming." He continues:
- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



-7up

[seven7up]

7up: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?

Not anymore than He can make a square circle, or a married bachelor. Aren't you in agreement that God can't do logically impossible things?

Yes. I agree that God cannot do logically impossible things.

I was pointing out the inconsistency of the arguments given by both Bill and Cow Poke.

Furthermore, let's say that, for example, creation Ex Nihilo is "logically impossible". Then you cannot criticize Mormons for believing in a God who is supposedly not "omnipotent".

Case in point. Here we have Christian bookworm, describing the "mystic" view of God:

I don't think the Mormon god is as powerful as the Christian God. We're talking about a Being that exists outside of space and time and can make what he wants to exist be real.

For starters, the god you describe is no god at all, if that kind of god doesn't exist. Just because you think that your imagined version of god seems "more powerful" than the Mormon view, does not make your view of god accurate. It is actually the "mystical god" described by Cherbonnier as being unBiblical. Not only that, but your view of god does not accurately explain the world we live in. Again, let's go back to the article:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7) In what sense is God transcendent and/or immanent?

"Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense.

..., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...

The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation....

Neither is the biblical God immanent, in the sense that He is diffused throughout the universe. To insist that He is omnipresent would be to imprison Him. The biblical God can be wherever He wants to be. If He is "immanent," it is only in the sense that He takes an active role in his creation, and particularly in human history, guiding the destiny of nations in ways they little suspect.

In the biblical context, the meaning of "immanent" is thus not very different from "transcendent." God is immanent insofar as He acts in history. He is transcendent insofar as He acts triumphantly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

-7up

[seven7up]

... I know that 7up realizes this as far as logical impossibilities, he just needs to realize that more than one God is such a logical impossibility.

I know that more than one mystical god ( transcendent/omnipresent/unknowable/ etc spirit essence ) is a logical impossibility.

I am arguing that this version of god you espouse is not the correct one.

I argue that there is one God, but in the LDS sense, which is not a contradiction, because there is an order to it:

As Joseph Smith said concerning Christ who inherits this kingdom, and Jesus will essentially say, "when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom".

The Father has more power/authority/glory than the Son. There is no conflict of power between these persons.





Sparko wrote:

So what's to prevent an evil intelligence from becoming a God and creating their own world to rule?

Where would this intelligence get the knowledge, power, authority, etc?




-7up

[Cow Poke]

7UP: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?

So, you're just going to keep repeating the same buttdumb argument over and over? I thought you were smarter than that. Just because somebody does NOT do something does not mean they CAN not do it. In fact, it would be outright DUMB. BECAUSE God is omnipotent He does not NEED to create a bunch of Mormon mini-me gods.

Pleases send us smarter Mormons.

[Bill the Cat]

7UP: Here is a good article for you:

THE LOGIC OF BIBLICAL ANTHROPOMORPHISM
The Harvard Theological Review (Vol. 55, 1962)
By: E. La B. Cherbonnier
http://www.philosophy-religion.org/c...ogic-bible.htm


JP Holding is holding back on the implication of Cherbonnier's arguments, and so are you.

Having now read Cherbonnier's whole article, and not just the snippets you Mormon apologists throw out there, it has become quite obvious that you are completely misusing him, just as JP charged Kevin with. The "implications" of his argument are nothing more than for a personal God, instead of a divine "force" that is completely indistinguishable and passionless (or as he says "in the mystical world-view, where God is the "Infinite All.") Cherbonnier means something entirely different by the term "anthropomorphic" than you do. That much is painfully obvious to anyone who even glances at this article. He also provides his definition in a classroom companion note sheet for teaching his article:

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/c...-Bib-Anthr.pdf

which states:

1. Definition of "anthropomorphism": "any theology that conceives of God in terms of those characteristics which are distinctively human: the capacity for discriminating judgment, the exercise of responsible decision and choice, the ability to carry out long-range purposes."

The link is there for anyone to read and I invite them to do so.

I have done so, and it has proven the point JP made, that God is not "everything", and that mysticism "is never able to state unequivocally the difference between man and God...", but that "[the] superiority of the Creator to his creatures consists of his "eternity." He can live forever, while they need not. They exist only at his pleasure. Whether they do in fact survive, or whether they perish, is entirely up to Him"

While this scholar still may hold to a kind of Ex Nihilo creation theology, he certainly argues many steps away from the view of God described by the creeds, and far closer to the view of God described by the Mormons.

Only if you, as you have parroted, completely misuse what he was arguing both for and against. Cherbonnier makes a passing comment that Mormon belief in God being an exalted human is closer to correct than what the mystics of his time believed about an impersonal "God" who is merely absent from interacting with His creation. He concludes " The conclusion is that neither Jews, nor Mormons, nor other Christians need be embarrassed by the idea that God is a Person." He quotes Professor W. H. V. Reade of Oxford who stated "When fear of anthropomorphism induces man to reject the idea of a personal God, and to substitute for it some product of abstract thinking, they simply delude themselves. ". But NOWHERE does he agree with you that God is an exalted human being with a human body.

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/c...er/defense.htm

Cherbonnier debunks the idea of God being literally "infinite"/"unlimited"/"unknowable"/"indescribable"/"omnipresent" spirit essence

As redefined by the Jewish Mystics, Buddhists, Hindus, and other non-Christian groups who believe in a god who is "diffused throughout the universe"

as described by Trinitarian views,

Trinitarians were not who he was arguing against, nor their ideas. Had YOU actually done some homework, you'd realize that your use of Cherbonnier to argue against trinitarian definitions of those terms is simply wrong. Read the chart at the bottom of the companion suppliment and maybe you will see that.

which were adapted from the "god of the philosophers" in Greek/Roman culture.

Cherbonnier was a philosopher.

In other words, the Trinitarians in "classic theism" were far too heavily influenced by philosophical monism. He calls this the "mystic" view of God, which is not Biblical at all:

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Were you to understand Cherbonnier's argument AT ALL, you would know what he meant by "monism" (hint: That the "god" of the mystics is the sole existent oneness, which forbids not only a second "god," but the existence of anything else at all.) So, YOUR use of "monism" is not how Cherbonnier uses it.

Here is a good example from the text:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5) In what sense is God invisible?

On one point, at least, mystic and prophet do seem to agree. Both speak of God as invisible. Once more, however, their agreement is apparent only. It dissolves in the light of the distinction between de jure and de facto. For the mystic, God so completely transcends the spatio-temporal world that the "finite" categories of seeing, hearing, and touching simply do not apply (except, perhaps, in some highly metaphorical sense). Such a God is invisible in principle.

The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself: to Moses (Ex. 33:23), to the elders of Israel (Ex. 24: 10), to Isaiah (Is. 6: 1). St. John quite consistently refers to "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life . . ." (I Jn. 1 : 1 ).

That is, God retains the freedom to show himself or to withhold his face at will. As Rudolf Bultmann observes,

God is not invisible to the senses as a matter of principle. Indeed, Hebrew has no word for ‘invisible.’ God is invisible because he wills to be so."15

Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him. The tendency to dissociate, to become a voyeur, is overcome only when men are as trustworthy as God. For most men, the vision of God will be postponed until we are perfected in love. In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Also note how he criticizes the idea of God which is supposedly "timeless" or "immutable" in some kind of metaphysical sense, or that somehow God "must be altogether beyond the realm of change and becoming." He continues:
- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



-7up

You've completely missed the intent of Cherbonnier, as I've shown from not only this work, but the companion teaching aide. You have improperly read Mormon ideas into his work and ascribed something to it that has no basis in reality. Sorry, but you failed. Again.