Originally posted by seven7up
Announcement
Collapse
LDS - Mormonism Guidelines
Theists only.
Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!
This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.
Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin
Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Forum Rules: Here
Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!
This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.
Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin
Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Mormon Trinity
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostNot 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?If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostI 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostSo what's to prevent an evil intelligence from becoming a God and creating their own world to rule?If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostYeah, 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).
It's just DUMB, and came from Smith's twisted imagination.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostWell, 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 first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
7UP: I agree that Jesus is "fully God". Because "Deity" / Godhood includes the concept of authority.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostThat is a consequence of deity, not the creator of it.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostWhen was it given? And did that suddenly make Him God?
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".
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostElohim 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.
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).
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostWhen?
7UP: There IS NO "ontological divide".
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostBut there IS between God and us.
7UP: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostLogical contradictions are just that. Your God can't make a square circle either, so he isn't omnipotent.
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.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostCan't handle the actual doctrines of Trinitarianism, so run and hide while claiming victory. Classic loonie tunes behavior.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostYay!! He can use google!!
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.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostNo I don't. You are the one that holds to completely unbiblical polytheism.
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".
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostSo, one can be deity, but not deity... riiight....
7UP: God the Father had to officially recognize the Deity of Jesus.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostNow we are talking complete and utter spin doctoring.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostJesus 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?
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.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostAt what point was it given to the Holy Spirit? Or is He not really God now?
7UP: So, are you saying that each person in the Godhead is only 1/3 of a God?
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostNo. That's what I am saying that YOU are claiming with your retarded examples. They are straw. Plain and simple.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostIf 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.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostAnd if I drink one, there now exists only 2/3 of the total amount of water, meaning LESS water, or LESS God.
-7up
Comment
-
7UP: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostSo, you saw how nutty it was, and decided to call it "tongue in cheek"?
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.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostSo, 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.
7up; So, what are you trying to argue, Cow Poke? That God cannot make us what He is?
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostGod is sovereign. He can do ANYTHING He wants, at any time.
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?
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostYour thinking is WAY too scrambled to run a planet or world or cosmos or whatever it is you think you'll eventually run.
-7up
Comment
-
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
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostAs 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.
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,
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
Comment
-
7up: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostNot 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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post... 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
Comment
-
Originally posted by seven7up View Post7UP: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?
Pleases send us smarter Mormons.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seven7up View Post7UP: 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.
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.
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.
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 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,
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"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-7upLast edited by Bill the Cat; 05-23-2014, 09:52 AM.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment