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
See more
See less

Mormon Trinity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    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.
    And thus we arrive at the idea of the who and what the evangelical god is.

    Instead of a loving Father who wants the very best for His children,

    You have an ego-maniacal monster, a being who purposefully creates inferior beings so that he can dominate and rule over them for his own selfish purposes - including creating billions from nothing, so that the grand majority can suffer in misery and damnation forever. Adherents to such religion do so because they fear that if they deviate from this viewpoint, then they themselves will go along with to majority, to eternal hell fire. Your dogma is abhorrent.


    -7up

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      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.

      I am not arguing that Cherbonnier is holds to purely Mormon doctrines. If he did, then we would expect him to actually be a Mormon, which he is not. Nevertheless, you are ignoring what is being said completely. I gave an example, like Trinitarians believing God is "invisible" as a matter of principle, or in a metaphysical sense. Cherbonnier argues against that, and actually gives a similar perspective to what Mormons give concerning this particular topic.

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      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."
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


      So, stop trying to side track the discussion by simply claiming that Cherbonnier is not a Mormon. We all know that.

      Just address what he is saying.

      -7up

      Comment


      • 7UP: 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.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        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.

        As you can see, I was saying that classic theistic views of God were ADAPTED FROM and INFLUENCED BY Monism. Please address the points that I am actually making, rather than the arguments that you wish I were making.

        Are you going to feign ignorance when it comes the kickback that Cherbonnier is giving to these theological perspectives? Are you going to pretend that there was no influence of the god of the philosophers upon Christianity?

        Both in Catholicism and Reformed theology, there remained an incorporation of Greek philosophy. They did not outright reject Platonism, which has been a significant influence in Christian theology. This is quite obvious.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        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.
        I never said that Cherbonnier agrees with every aspect of Mormon theology. Your attempt to dodge the points being made by Cherbonnier is embarrassing. I brought up 3 ideas:

        1) How is God "invisible"
        2) God in relation to "spatio-temporal" existence (transcendence and immanence)
        3) God supposedly being "wholly other" compared to man

        This was in relation to the second idea:

        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        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.
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
        -

        Do you agree with this explanation of transcendent and immanent?

        If not, how does it contrast to your view? How does it compare to the LDS view?

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        You've completely missed the intent of Cherbonnier...
        I have not. What YOU have done is tried the change the subject by saying, "Well, Cherbonnier did not claim that God was an exalted man." I never claimed that Cherbonnier argued for that. I also never claimed that Charbonnier was arguing against Ex Nihilo. In fact, I pointed out that I imagined that we would be in disagreement on that issue. What I DID do was point out some viewpoints of his which appear to be at odds with your theology. In the next portion, I was simply contrasting your of an absolute "ontological divide" between God and man, with Cherbonnier's softer stance:

        - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        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"
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

        You can attempt to agree with Cherbonnier on one or more of these points, and then try to twist his words in order to pretend that they are in line with the Creeds of Christianity. OR you can say that you disagree with Cherbonnier. OR you can disagree with the traditional understanding of traditional/creedal Christianity. However, your tactic so far has been to deflect and evade.


        -7up

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
          7UP: 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.




          As you can see, I was saying that classic theistic views of God were ADAPTED FROM and INFLUENCED BY Monism.
          Oh come off it! You tried to use Cherbonnier's arguments against the mystic idea of a wholly impersonal god who is the universe itself for something he never mentioned. That is sloppiness, plain and simple. And you now are trying desperately to wriggle out of that sloppiness by shifting your goalposts.


          Please address the points that I am actually making, rather than the arguments that you wish I were making.
          I did. You claimed that Cherbonnier "debunks the idea of God being literally "infinite"/"unlimited"/"unknowable"/"indescribable"/"omnipresent" spirit essence as described by Trinitarian views". He did no such thing. The Trinitarian view is not the mystic view, and therefore, Cherbonnier's arguments are not valid critiques of trinitarian views.

          Are you going to feign ignorance when it comes the kickback that Cherbonnier is giving to these theological perspectives?
          Put the urim and thumim down, dude. You bastardized his arguments. That much is quite obvious.

          Are you going to pretend that there was no influence of the god of the philosophers upon Christianity?
          I am rebutting your parrotted use of Cherbonnier's rebuttal of the mystic concept of an impersonal God.

          Both in Catholicism and Reformed theology, there remained an incorporation of Greek philosophy.
          And you've yet to link that to what Cherbonnier was REALLY saying. Because that link isn't there.

          They did not outright reject Platonism, which has been a significant influence in Christian theology. This is quite obvious.
          There is also MUCH in common between Platonism and Mormonism. Care for a few examples?


          I never said that Cherbonnier agrees with every aspect of Mormon theology.
          You said he "debunks the idea of God... as described by Trinitarian views. He did no such thing. Trinitarian views are not the same as mystic views that he was describing, and anyone who actually READ Cherbonnier's work, instead of thieving a quote from FAIR, would see that within the first 3 pages.

          Your attempt to dodge the points being made by Cherbonnier is embarrassing.
          You stole the quote from FAIR, or some other anti-anti-Mormon site with no understanding at all of what Cherbonnier was even saying.

          I brought up 3 ideas:

          1) How is God "invisible"
          2) God in relation to "spatio-temporal" existence (transcendence and immanence)
          3) God supposedly being "wholly other" compared to man
          And those questions were answered by Cherbonnier within the framework of how a MYSTIC identifies those terms, not a Trinitarian. I found absolutely nothing Cherbonnier wrote to be disagreeable to trinitarianism.

          This was in relation to the second idea:

          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          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.
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
          -
          Bold added by me.

          Do you agree with this explanation of transcendent and immanent?
          Yes, especially since I know what Cherbonnier is actually arguing against with his use of terms.

          I have not. What YOU have done is tried the change the subject by saying, "Well, Cherbonnier did not claim that God was an exalted man."
          YOU changed HIS subject, and now you are moving the goal posts.

          I never claimed that Cherbonnier argued for that. I also never claimed that Charbonnier was arguing against Ex Nihilo. In fact, I pointed out that I imagined that we would be in disagreement on that issue. What I DID do was point out some viewpoints of his which appear to be at odds with your theology.
          And I pointed out that MY theology is not the same as what he was arguing against, so the viewpoints he was expressing are not applicable to a different theological framework.

          In the next portion, I was simply contrasting your of an absolute "ontological divide" between God and man, with Cherbonnier's softer stance:

          - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          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"
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

          You can attempt to agree with Cherbonnier on one or more of these points, and then try to twist his words in order to pretend that they are in line with the Creeds of Christianity.
          Considering what he was arguing against, there would be very little to have to "twist". He is arguing against a mystic impersonal god "force" that is the universe itself.

          OR you can say that you disagree with Cherbonnier. OR you can disagree with the traditional understanding of traditional/creedal Christianity. However, your tactic so far has been to deflect and evade.
          I'd be willing to bet that you never read any of his work. You grabbed this from a Mormon apologetic site and ran with it just like they did. You don't understand a single thing he was arguing against.
          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


          • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
            Please address the points that I am actually making, rather than the arguments that you wish I were making.
            Oh, the irony!
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              ... anyone who actually READ Cherbonnier's work, instead of thieving a quote from FAIR, would see that within the first 3 pages. ...You stole the quote from FAIR, or some other anti-anti-Mormon site with no understanding at all of what Cherbonnier was even saying. ... I'd be willing to bet that you never read any of his work. You grabbed this from a Mormon apologetic site and ran with it just like they did. You don't understand a single thing he was arguing against.
              I gave the link for the original article. I myself quoted these sections from the original article, which required a detailed reading of the entire text. This accusation of yours is just another attempt to distract from the fact that you are dodging the questions I asked you.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Considering what he was arguing against, there would be very little to have to "twist". He is arguing against a mystic impersonal god "force" that is the universe itself.
              I never said that the Trinitarian view is an "impersonal force". The sections of the text I referenced did not refer to the personal/impersonal aspect of the discussion at all. I was much more specific than that.

              He was not just arguing against God being an impersonal force, but he is discussing in what sense God should be considered "invisible". Is God literally omnipresent? Is God "wholly other"? How is God considered to be transcendent and immanent? So, quit side stepping and just answer the questions Bill.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              Oh come off it! You tried to use Cherbonnier's arguments against the mystic idea of a wholly impersonal god who is the universe itself for something he never mentioned. That is sloppiness, plain and simple.... You claimed that Cherbonnier "debunks the idea of God being literally "infinite"/"unlimited"/"unknowable"/"indescribable"/"omnipresent" spirit essence as described by Trinitarian views". He did no such thing.
              I gave you the opportunity to explain how your views differ from the "mystic" perspective in relation to the three topics I mentioned in the last two posts. Yet you have refrained from doing so. Why is that? For example, if you think that Cherbonnier is arguing for the literal omnipresence of God, then post the section of text where you think he makes that argument OR you can argue that Trinitarians do not believe in the literal omnipresence of God.

              Since you dodged the actual perspectives given in my previous two posts, I suppose I will just rephrase them and hope against odds that you will actually address these issues:

              I brought up 3 ideas raised Cherbonnier:

              1) How is God "invisible"
              2) God in relation to "spatio-temporal" existence (transcendence and immanence)
              3) God supposedly being "wholly other" compared to man

              I gave an example, like Trinitarians believing God the Father is "invisible" as a matter of principle, or in a metaphysical sense. Cherbonnier argues against that:
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
              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."

              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Do you agree with this explanation concerning God being "invisible"?

              If not, how does it contrast to your view?



              This next one was in relation to the second idea:

              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              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.

              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

              Do you agree with this explanation of transcendent and immanent?

              If not, how does it contrast to your view?



              Finally, we have the concept of whether or not God is "wholly other". This is a common phrase used by classic theists, and Cherbonnier appears to disagree with it.

              - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              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"
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

              Do you agree with this idea of God not being "wholly other"?

              If not, how does it contrast to your view?
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              I did. You claimed that Cherbonnier "debunks the idea of God being literally "infinite"/"unlimited"/"unknowable"/"indescribable"/"omnipresent" spirit essence as described by Trinitarian views". He did no such thing. The Trinitarian view is not the mystic view, and therefore, Cherbonnier's arguments are not valid critiques of trinitarian views. ... You bastardized his arguments. That much is quite obvious.
              Then please explain how these views above are actually describing Trinitarian views. If you think that these perspectives given above by Cherbonnier are reflective of the Trinitarian viewpoints, then feel free to explain it. Until then, you cannot claim that I "bastardized his arguments" with any credibility.

              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
              I found absolutely nothing Cherbonnier wrote to be disagreeable to trinitarianism.
              I think that most Trinitarians would disagree with you. But you had your opportunity to explain, and refused to do so. Will you continue to just ignore the concepts being presented here?


              -7up

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Oh, the irony!
                As you will see, this is going to be interesting. While Bill accuses me of supposedly "twisting Cherbonnier's" perspective, ... he is in for a rude awakening. He accuses me of not reading the entire articles, and then, a few posts ago, Bill said this ...

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                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." ...

                http://www.philosophy-religion.org/c...er/defense.htm
                Right ... a "passing comment" Bill. Did anybody bother to read THAT article? He is not just talking about "mystics" in the article, he is talking about Christian theologians as well.

                Let's see what else Cherbonnier said in this article which is introduced by this sentence: "In the present paper Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier argues that the biblical and the Mormon understanding of God are indistinguishable." Thus, Cherbonnier specifically defends the LDS view of God as being Biblical.

                Please read it all, but I will provide some snippets, including some which specifically defend Mormon/LDS perspectives and even quote LDS leaders:

                1) The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."

                2) Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."

                3) What then do the biblical authors mean when they speak of God? Are they speaking literally or not? Thanks to two centuries of scholarship, this is no longer a matter of guesswork, nor is it a question which anyone is free to answer as he pleases - anyone, that is, who respects the results of critical investigation. For biblical scholarship is unanimous in confirming what the Mormons have always held: that the God of the Bible is a personal Agent with a proper name. This conception might or might not be valid; that is a separate issue. But from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible conceives of God in the same terms that are peculiar to human beings, such as speaking, caring, planning, judging, and taking action.


                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                Cherbonnier's arguments are not valid critiques of trinitarian views.
                As this other article clearly demonstrates, Cherbonnier is was not just making arguments against a mystic or philosophical God of the Greeks, but often is addressing mainstream Christianity:

                4) When Christian thinkers have tried to judge themselves and their religion by the rules of rational argument, they have generally found the God of popular piety to be a source of embarrassment.... Hence the tendency, in both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology, to distinguish between those beliefs which are suitable for mass consumption and those which are intelligible only to an elite. And hence also the tendency to look with condescension upon those branches of Christianity, often referred to as fringe groups... What are the reasons why this conception of God has not been taken seriously by intellectuals, Christian or otherwise?

                5) For to say anything at all about what God has done implies a Doer; to say anything about his purpose implies a Purposer; to say anything about the word of God implies a Speaker. Abandon the premise that God is a Person and you undercut with a stroke everything else that is said about him, whether in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. In short, to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic - not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly. As another biblical scholar, G. Ernest Wright, puts it: "Anthropomorphism thus indicates God's personal relation to history, and to assume that we can dispense with it as belonging to a primitive stage in our religious ~ development, is to separate ourselves not only from the Bible, but from the biblical conception of the true meaning of history."12

                6) the consensus of most religious philosophers, have persuaded theologians that no thinking person could subscribe to the idea of God as Person. In the name of reason, therefore, they long ago made a fateful decision. They decided to tone down this conception and to reach an accommodation with the philosophical conception of "the divine." With the wisdom of hindsight, it is not difficult to see that their enterprise was doomed to fail. For while making overtures to philosophy, they could not, as Christians, abandon completely the anthropomorphic God of their own liturgies, hymns, and creeds. They were thus caught in a logical dilemma. For when they ascribe to the biblical God the attributes of "the divine" as conceived by philosophy, they tacitly contradict themselves. Though they aspired to rationality, they were trying to combine two ideas of God that are mutually exclusive, and were therefore bound to end in self-contradiction. It was the Mormon theologian, Parley P. Pratt, who called attention to this dilemma over a hundred years ago. Commenting on the philosophical attributes of God, he said, “It is painful to be compelled to admit that such wonderful inconsistency of language and ideas have ever found place in any human creed. Yet so it is.”17 In a less polemical vein, the writings of Professor Truman G. Madsen, of Brigham Young University, have clearly shown that the attempt to combine the biblical God with that of the philosophers is like trying to square the circle.18


                7) In short, theology as traditionally practiced is a prescription for schizophrenia. Like other schizophrenics, its practitioners have developed strategies for rationalizing their problem. These include such technical devices as paradox, analogy, the via negativa, and two-level thinking. The most successful, however, has been the one already mentioned, the symbolic interpretation of the Bible. It is based upon the fact that the philosophers' God can never be described in words. For language only functions on the finite level; when applied to the Infinite, it breaks down. Hence, all statements about "the divine" are necessarily metaphorical and symbolic.

                8) As was pointed out above, persons who interpret the Bible symbolically have made up their minds in advance in favor of the philosophers' God. They are therefore not prepared to hear what the Bible actually says, but only what they think it should say. By interpreting it symbolically, they subtly substitute the philosophers' God for the Bible's own, not after a fair hearing, but without one. Though the results may be convincing to the believer, the secular critic detects it for what it is...

                9)The conclusion is that neither Jews, nor Mormons, nor other Christians need be embarrassed by the idea that God is a Person. They need not apologize for literal interpretation, for that does most justice to what the biblical authors meant. Nor need they apologize to traditional theology, for it has finally come to the end of a blind alley. Where then is the vitality in Christianity today? Where is it growing instead of shrinking? Among the so-called fringe groups who frankly do acknowledge that God is a Person. Is there perhaps a message in that for theology? Might it too be rejuvenated if it stopped deifying the subhuman and the impersonal? If it were based solidly upon the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, might it achieve the consistency that has eluded it? In the past this God has characteristically started from small and improbable beginnings. Mormons hardly need to be reminded of that. Would it be out of character for him to do the same in the realm of thought as well? It would not be the first time that he has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.


                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                But NOWHERE does Cherbonnier agree with you that God is an exalted human being with a human body.
                He doesn't come out and say it explicitly, (although reading both quotes 1 and 2 above come close as he describes Joseph Smith's point of view as "Biblical"). In fact, existing in spacio-temporal reality, as Cherbonnier argues for, implies the idea as a definite possibility. Any honest person must concede that. And certainly we can say that Jesus Christ is fully Deity, and He IS an exalted human being with a human body. You add that to the fact that the Bible says that we are made in "the image and likeness of God". Cherbonner criticizes those who attempt to take such Biblical declarations as symbolic rather than reading the text plainly.

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                YOU changed HIS subject, and now you are moving the goal posts.
                Am I? Or are you attempting to change the pillars of the classic Christian theology, which describe a god who is literally omnipresent, literally invisible, unknowable, "wholly other", transcendent, immanent, etc.

                -7up

                Comment


                • If Joseph Smith were truly "the Prophet of the Restoration" -- he sure got a lot of things wrong, and muddied rather than clarified. He totally threw away this alleged opportunity by following the lusts of his own heart.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    I gave the link for the original article. I myself quoted these sections from the original article, which required a detailed reading of the entire text. This accusation of yours is just another attempt to distract from the fact that you are dodging the questions I asked you.
                    Bull crap. It is blatantly obvious that you have no idea what Cherbonnier is saying, and you are importing Mormon theology into his philosophical discussion. You assume that when he says "anthropomorphism", he means a body similar to man's. He intends no such thing. He claims a "personal" God, meaning a localized center of consciousness that is capable of emotion, reaction, and concern for mankind.


                    I never said that the Trinitarian view is an "impersonal force".
                    That is the view of "god" that Cherbonnier is refuting.

                    The sections of the text I referenced did not refer to the personal/impersonal aspect of the discussion at all. I was much more specific than that.
                    You imported Mormon meanings into his words, which had no such baggage. I will discuss this as I go along in my reply.

                    He was not just arguing against God being an impersonal force, but he is discussing in what sense God should be considered "invisible". Is God literally omnipresent? Is God "wholly other"? How is God considered to be transcendent and immanent? So, quit side stepping and just answer the questions Bill.
                    I'll do better than that. Since you refuse to admit that you both 1) stole the Cherbonnier quotes from FAIR, and 2) import your own philosophical definitions to words he is using, I will cite where he is more distinct, just as I cited HIS definition of anthropomorphism, which refutes the Mormon one.


                    I gave you the opportunity to explain how your views differ from the "mystic" perspective in relation to the three topics I mentioned in the last two posts.
                    One step at a time. It is imperative first to show how you are misusing his ideas before I defend my own.

                    Yet you have refrained from doing so. Why is that?
                    Because I am not going to let you weasel out of admitting that you stole a quote that you simply do not understand. THAT is my priority right now. I will get to trinitarianism and Cherbonnier later. One thing at a time.

                    For example, if you think that Cherbonnier is arguing for the literal omnipresence of God, then post the section of text where you think he makes that argument OR you can argue that Trinitarians do not believe in the literal omnipresence of God.
                    No. First, we must see what Cherbonnier is refuting. I cite his piece "A. J. HESCHEL AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE" to see what he is arguing AGAINST, and the definition of "omnipresent" he is using:

                    Source: philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier


                    on the one hand, the "god of the philosophers," the "one beyond all duality," an all-pervasive "something" which permeates the multiplicity of things in space and time; on the other hand, the God of the prophets, whose unity, in contrast to the fabrications of mythology, consists in continuity of personal identity, but who, unlike the philosopher's god, can create a world outside himself.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Notice he contrasts the "omnipresent" god of the philosophers as one who is contained in the "everything" of the existence, and that everything in existence is inside of him, with the "God of the Prophets" who created existence apart from Himself (just as trinitarians believe). So, this is another area where you fail to understand what he is arguing for and against.


                    Since you dodged the actual perspectives given in my previous two posts, I suppose I will just rephrase them and hope against odds that you will actually address these issues:
                    I didn't dodge anything. You don't even remotely grasp what it is he is saying.

                    I brought up 3 ideas raised Cherbonnier:

                    1) How is God "invisible"
                    2) God in relation to "spatio-temporal" existence (transcendence and immanence)
                    3) God supposedly being "wholly other" compared to man

                    I gave an example, like Trinitarians believing God the Father is "invisible" as a matter of principle, or in a metaphysical sense. Cherbonnier argues against that:
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
                    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."

                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Do you agree with this explanation concerning God being "invisible"?
                    For the most part. For the former (the mystic god), Cherbonnier refers to their god who is wholly incapable of manifestation, vision, or experience, ever. He simply is wholly unable to be seen by anything as a matter of his existence. For the latter (the biblical God), Augustine describes similarly as Cherbonnier in refuting the Homoians. At the beginning of De Trinitate, Augustine explains Mt. 5:8:

                    Source: Augustine, The Trinity, Edmund Hill translation, The Works of Saint Augustine, Part I, Vol 5; p. 76


                    “The fact is that the man Christ Jesus, mediator of God and man, now reigning for all the just who live by faith, is going to bring them to direct sight of God, to a face-to-face vision... that is what is meant by `when he hands the kingdom over to God and the Father,’ as though to say `When he brings believers to a direct contemplation of God and the Father’.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Augustine’s judgment is that all three Persons of the Trinity will be seen only at the completion of history. It is Augustine's belief, as Cherbonnier notes as well, that God is invisible as a matter of principle, not nature.

                    If not, how does it contrast to your view?
                    Cherbonnier differs from my view in that he claims the theophanies of the OT were God actually showing Himself, and my belief, like Augustine's were that they were temporary "created instruments of God’s presence" that ceased to exist after their disappearance. For instance, the pillar of fire, Solomon's Shekinah glory, the burning bush, Ezekiel's wheels, Daniel's finger, all were temporary creations by God in order for His presence to be visibly manifested. Once He was done with them, they disappeared from existence.


                    This next one was in relation to the second idea:

                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    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.

                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

                    Do you agree with this explanation of transcendent and immanent?
                    When I understand what Cherbonnier means by both of those words, yes. When he refers to "transcendent in the mystical sense", he means one who is unable to interact with his creation. When he mentions mystic "immanence", he means one who is diffused throughout the universe, meaning parts are here and parts are there (sort of like dumping a cup of sugar in a swimming pool), while wholly being unable to interact with it. He remains "wholly other", amongst creation but not actually in creation.

                    If not, how does it contrast to your view?
                    It differs slightly from my view in that His transcendence is far more than simpy His sovereignty over it. He is both amongst creation and able to be in creation. Had creation never occurred, God would still exist.


                    Finally, we have the concept of whether or not God is "wholly other". This is a common phrase used by classic theists, and Cherbonnier appears to disagree with it.

                    - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    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"
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                    Do you agree with this idea of God not being "wholly other"?
                    Yes. God's existence is a personal one, not a metaphysical "otherness", incapable of speech or action. That is what Cherbonnier means by "wholly other". He is not referring to an ontological likeness. Cherbonnier differentiates what he means in his essay "THE THEOLOGY OF THE WORD OF GOD"


                    Source: above


                    Is God "wholly other" than man? If so, then only negatives may be applied to him. Or is he the most universal, the most all-embracing essence? If so, we must call him "Being-itself," the "Absolute." Or is he a God who speaks? In that case, the truest words which can be applied to him, by analogy, derive from the only other realm of our experience in which we encounter true speech.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    When Cherbonnier mentions a "wholly other" god, he is referring to something that is not personal in any way, shape, or form.


                    Then please explain how these views above are actually describing Trinitarian views.
                    1) Cherbonnier says God is not invisible by His nature, meaning He is absolutely impossible to behold by anything or anyone. Trinitarians agree with that. We believe that we will behold Him in the eternities as he is.

                    2) Cherbonnier says God is not transcendent in that He is unable to interact with his creation. Trinitarians agree with that. We believe that God interacts with His creation

                    3) Cherbonnier says God is not "wholly other" in that He is personal. Trinitarians believe that too.

                    If you think that these perspectives given above by Cherbonnier are reflective of the Trinitarian viewpoints, then feel free to explain it. Until then, you cannot claim that I "bastardized his arguments" with any credibility.
                    You did. You are importing Mormon definitions where they are unwarranted instead of finding out what Cherbonnier actually means.



                    I think that most Trinitarians would disagree with you.
                    I don't.

                    But you had your opportunity to explain, and refused to do so. Will you continue to just ignore the concepts being presented here?


                    -7up
                    As I said, I have to show how you are misusing him first before I could explain how to properly use him. AN\nd misuse him, you did, although I suspect FAIR is really to blame. You think he supports your view over mine, when it simply isn't true.
                    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


                    • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                      As you will see, this is going to be interesting. While Bill accuses me of supposedly "twisting Cherbonnier's" perspective, ... he is in for a rude awakening. He accuses me of not reading the entire articles, and then, a few posts ago, Bill said this ...



                      Right ... a "passing comment" Bill. Did anybody bother to read THAT article? He is not just talking about "mystics" in the article, he is talking about Christian theologians as well.
                      He says "A God who can communicate with mankind, and play a part in human events, is no doubt adapted to the mental level of children and of the uneducated, but is hardly taken seriously by the sophisticated". This is not talking about any Christian belief. He cites the likes of Paul Tillich, who often declared that God is being itself (pantheism, not biblical Christian beliefs). So, as we can see, his passing comment was about Mormon beliefs, as I said, being 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 also mentioned some Christian scholars who were well off the reservation, like Tillich.


                      Let's see what else Cherbonnier said in this article which is introduced by this sentence: "In the present paper Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier argues that the biblical and the Mormon understanding of God are indistinguishable." Thus, Cherbonnier specifically defends the LDS view of God as being Biblical.
                      What a joke! That was an introduction to Cherbonnier's article by a MORMON! Cherbonnier never defended the Mormon view of God having a body, nor did he bother to take the time to refute it, mentioning his limited time and scope later in the piece. He only mentioned the Mormon belief was consistent with a personal God. He NEVER agreed that God was an exalted human, which is the implication that Madsen so falsely claimed in the introduction.


                      Please read it all, but I will provide some snippets, including some which specifically defend Mormon/LDS perspectives and even quote LDS leaders:

                      1) The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."


                      The true God exists whether or not time and space do.


                      2) Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."
                      Two things here. First, he is simply noting the consistency of your beliefs, not validating them. Second, Cherbonnier and Smith are both wrong in that demons had power over the man in the cemetery at Gerasenes, as did the demon who attacked the 7 sons of Sceva from Acts 19.

                      3) What then do the biblical authors mean when they speak of God? Are they speaking literally or not? Thanks to two centuries of scholarship, this is no longer a matter of guesswork, nor is it a question which anyone is free to answer as he pleases - anyone, that is, who respects the results of critical investigation. For biblical scholarship is unanimous in confirming what the Mormons have always held: that the God of the Bible is a personal Agent with a proper name. This conception might or might not be valid; that is a separate issue. But from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible conceives of God in the same terms that are peculiar to human beings, such as speaking, caring, planning, judging, and taking action.
                      Notice he does not say anything about having a human body. Trinitarians also believe in a God who is speaking, caring, planning, judging, and taking action.


                      As this other article clearly demonstrates, Cherbonnier is was not just making arguments against a mystic or philosophical God of the Greeks, but often is addressing mainstream Christianity:

                      4) When Christian thinkers have tried to judge themselves and their religion by the rules of rational argument, they have generally found the God of popular piety to be a source of embarrassment.... Hence the tendency, in both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology, to distinguish between those beliefs which are suitable for mass consumption and those which are intelligible only to an elite. And hence also the tendency to look with condescension upon those branches of Christianity, often referred to as fringe groups... What are the reasons why this conception of God has not been taken seriously by intellectuals, Christian or otherwise?


                      And then he goes on to cite unorthodox claims from theologians. So, no, he was not addressing mainstream Christianity because mainstream Christianity has never believed the things he is attributing to these "thinkers".

                      5) For to say anything at all about what God has done implies a Doer; to say anything about his purpose implies a Purposer; to say anything about the word of God implies a Speaker. Abandon the premise that God is a Person and you undercut with a stroke everything else that is said about him, whether in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. In short, to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic - not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly. As another biblical scholar, G. Ernest Wright, puts it: "Anthropomorphism thus indicates God's personal relation to history, and to assume that we can dispense with it as belonging to a primitive stage in our religious ~ development, is to separate ourselves not only from the Bible, but from the biblical conception of the true meaning of history."12
                      And as Cherbonnier, and Wright, consistently delcare - anthropomorphism simply means having human-like responses and abilities. It has nothing to do with having a human body.

                      6) the consensus of most religious philosophers, have persuaded theologians that no thinking person could subscribe to the idea of God as Person. In the name of reason, therefore, they long ago made a fateful decision. They decided to tone down this conception and to reach an accommodation with the philosophical conception of "the divine." With the wisdom of hindsight, it is not difficult to see that their enterprise was doomed to fail. For while making overtures to philosophy, they could not, as Christians, abandon completely the anthropomorphic God of their own liturgies, hymns, and creeds. They were thus caught in a logical dilemma. For when they ascribe to the biblical God the attributes of "the divine" as conceived by philosophy, they tacitly contradict themselves. Though they aspired to rationality, they were trying to combine two ideas of God that are mutually exclusive, and were therefore bound to end in self-contradiction. It was the Mormon theologian, Parley P. Pratt, who called attention to this dilemma over a hundred years ago. Commenting on the philosophical attributes of God, he said, “It is painful to be compelled to admit that such wonderful inconsistency of language and ideas have ever found place in any human creed. Yet so it is.”17 In a less polemical vein, the writings of Professor Truman G. Madsen, of Brigham Young University, have clearly shown that the attempt to combine the biblical God with that of the philosophers is like trying to square the circle.18
                      Again, you have to understand what Cherbonnier was refuting, which was the views of the mystics, like Tilich.

                      7) In short, theology as traditionally practiced is a prescription for schizophrenia. Like other schizophrenics, its practitioners have developed strategies for rationalizing their problem. These include such technical devices as paradox, analogy, the via negativa, and two-level thinking. The most successful, however, has been the one already mentioned, the symbolic interpretation of the Bible. It is based upon the fact that the philosophers' God can never be described in words. For language only functions on the finite level; when applied to the Infinite, it breaks down. Hence, all statements about "the divine" are necessarily metaphorical and symbolic.


                      Again, this is Cherbonnier arguing against beliefs like Tilich.

                      8) As was pointed out above, persons who interpret the Bible symbolically have made up their minds in advance in favor of the philosophers' God. They are therefore not prepared to hear what the Bible actually says, but only what they think it should say. By interpreting it symbolically, they subtly substitute the philosophers' God for the Bible's own, not after a fair hearing, but without one. Though the results may be convincing to the believer, the secular critic detects it for what it is...
                      And when we understand what Cherbonnier means by "the philosopher's god", which I have repeatedly defined, we will see that using it in an attempted rebuttal to trinitarianism is wrong.

                      9)The conclusion is that neither Jews, nor Mormons, nor other Christians need be embarrassed by the idea that God is a Person. They need not apologize for literal interpretation, for that does most justice to what the biblical authors meant. Nor need they apologize to traditional theology, for it has finally come to the end of a blind alley. Where then is the vitality in Christianity today? Where is it growing instead of shrinking? Among the so-called fringe groups who frankly do acknowledge that God is a Person. Is there perhaps a message in that for theology? Might it too be rejuvenated if it stopped deifying the subhuman and the impersonal? If it were based solidly upon the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, might it achieve the consistency that has eluded it? In the past this God has characteristically started from small and improbable beginnings. Mormons hardly need to be reminded of that. Would it be out of character for him to do the same in the realm of thought as well? It would not be the first time that he has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.
                      He noted that your view is consistent. Big whoop. So is mine. I believe that God is a person. 3 in fact. As does the history of trinitarian belief.



                      He doesn't come out and say it explicitly, (although reading both quotes 1 and 2 above come close as he describes Joseph Smith's point of view as "Biblical").
                      Only in the fact that God is a person, not an impersonal "it".

                      In fact, existing in spacio-temporal reality, as Cherbonnier argues for, implies the idea as a definite possibility. Any honest person must concede that. And certainly we can say that Jesus Christ is fully Deity, and He IS an exalted human being with a human body.
                      He was deity before becoming human, so no. We can not say He is an exalted human. to say so would imply that He had to be human before becoming exalted.

                      You add that to the fact that the Bible says that we are made in "the image and likeness of God". Cherbonner criticizes those who attempt to take such Biblical declarations as symbolic rather than reading the text plainly.
                      He never mentions this verse at all. In fact, in another piece, he claims the image of God is freedom to choose:

                      Source: HUMAN FREEDOM: TO THE GREEKS, FOOLISHNESS


                      From within the framework of the determinist’s creed, however, this same freedom, the very image of God, is regarded as sin!

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      He also explains that being made in the image and likeness of God relates to God's character, not His physical appearance:

                      Source: HUMILITY


                      Thanks to the unaccountable fact of God's favourable disposition towards mankind, human existence has value without limit. In the classic OT expression, man was made in the image of God (Gn 126 96). This exaltation of the human status reaches its climax in the NT, which declares that the character of God Himself can be fully known only in a particular human life. Small wonder that Jew and Christian appeared to the educated pagan as anything but humble! To him, the prophetic exhortation to ‘walk humbly with your God’ (Mic 68) would be a contradiction in terms. The idea of walking with God at all would seem presumptuous in the extreme.

                      © Copyright Original Source





                      Am I?
                      I have no doubt in my mind.

                      Or are you attempting to change the pillars of the classic Christian theology,
                      No

                      which describe a god who is literally omnipresent,
                      On this, Cherbonnier and I disagree. For being somewhere, "wherever He wants to be" implies that He is not anywhere else at that time. This would mean that the person of God the Spirit could only indwell one person at a time, and thus have to leave everyone else. However, I've not come across where Cherbonnier ever explained what he meant by "wherever He wants to be" if God wanted to be in 2 places at the same time.

                      literally invisible
                      No classic theologian I know claims that God is solely invisible by nature, and unable to ever be seen. Grudem explains that He can ALLOW Himself to be seen, thus He is not solely invisible by nature. Something that IS NOT seen is not the same as something that CAN NOT be seen.

                      , unknowable, "wholly other", transcendent, immanent, etc.

                      -7up
                      I've already dismantled your objections to these as your plain lack of understanding of what Cherbonnier was talking about.
                      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


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        If Joseph Smith were truly "the Prophet of the Restoration" -- he sure got a lot of things wrong, and muddied rather than clarified.
                        If anything was unclear early on, it became clear as he learned and as revelations were given. By the time his mission and life was complete, many things were clarified, not muddled.

                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        He totally threw away this alleged opportunity by following the lusts of his own heart.
                        You are assuming that.

                        He may very well have been simply following very difficult commands, which indeed were given by God, and were given in order to fulfill God's purposes.

                        -7up

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          He cites the likes of Paul Tillich, who often declared that God is being itself (pantheism, not biblical Christian beliefs).
                          Arguably, a God creating from absolutely nothing, creating an existence which is exactly what God himself has pre-imagined it to be, and thus is an extension of God's own imagination, is a form of pantheism, very similar to "PanENtheism".

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          So, as we can see, his passing comment was about Mormon beliefs, as I said, being closer to correct than what the mystics of his time believed about an impersonal "God" who is merely absent from interacting with His creation.
                          But again, it isn't just about God being impersonal, because Cherbonnier goes well beyond that in these two articles. He speaks against the idea that the Biblical God is literally omnipresent, against the idea that the Biblical God is immanent and transcendent, against the idea that the Biblical God has a supposed inherent characteristic of being "invisible", against the idea that the Biblical God exists outside of time and space. These are the same arguments that LDS make, and the same ideas that are criticized by non-LDS Christians.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Cherbonnier never defended the Mormon view of God having a body, nor did he bother to take the time to refute it, mentioning his limited time and scope later in the piece. He only mentioned the Mormon belief was consistent with a personal God.
                          He never criticized it, he defended it, and he even argues that it is consistent with the Bible:

                          "Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          The true God exists whether or not time and space do.
                          Where did Cherbonnier say that?

                          I myself would not go beyond saying that the true God can exist outside time and space as we know and understand it.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          First, he is simply noting the consistency of your beliefs, not validating them.
                          He praised the consistency of LDS beliefs, AND criticized the inconsistency of believing in an anthropomorphic God who is also, and in contradiction, supposedly outside time and space, supposedly literally omnipresent, etc.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Two things here. First, he is simply noting the consistency of your beliefs, not validating them. Second, Cherbonnier and Smith are both wrong in that demons had power over the man in the cemetery at Gerasenes, as did the demon who attacked the 7 sons of Sceva from Acts 19.
                          Only because the man allowed it, due to his spiritual weakness. But at least you are to the point of admitting that you are at odds with the perspective of Cherbonnier.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Notice he does not say anything about having a human body. Trinitarians also believe in a God who is speaking, caring, planning, judging, and taking action.
                          He barely stopped short of it, but existing in time and space implies having a corporeal existence.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          And then he goes on to cite unorthodox claims from theologians. So, no, he was not addressing mainstream Christianity because mainstream Christianity has never believed the things he is attributing to these "thinkers".
                          So explain where mainstream Christianity describes God as existing within time and space. Demonstrate where mainstream Christianity denies that God (referring to the Father) is "invisible" as part of his nature.

                          -7up

                          Comment


                          • Allow me to quote from CARM, the "Christian Apologetic Research Ministry", who are meant to be the mainstream Christians who oppose the LDS viewpoint.

                            Wholly Other:
                            "The term "wholly other" is used in Christain theology to describe the difference between God and everything else. God, the Christian God, is completely different than all other things that exist. God can be described by essential properties such as holiness, immutability, etc. But we have to ask how we, as finite creatures, can relate to the infinite God. It is difficult when he is "wholly other" than we are."
                            http://carm.org/dictionary-wholly-other


                            Now let's see what Cherbonnier says about the idea of God being "wholly other":
                            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                            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"
                            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                            Which side are you going to take Bill?

                            -7up

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              I'll do better than that. Since you refuse to admit that you both 1) stole the Cherbonnier quotes from FAIR,
                              You made the accusation. Now back it up. (It should be easy, all you have to do is take the quotes as they appear on the FAIR websites, and see how it corresponds to the quotes that I provided on this forum. If they are a perfect match ... then , well , you got me.)

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              First, we must see what Cherbonnier is refuting. I cite his piece "A. J. HESCHEL AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE" to see what he is arguing AGAINST, and the definition of "omnipresent" he is using:
                              Source: philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier


                              on the one hand, the "god of the philosophers," the "one beyond all duality," an all-pervasive "something" which permeates the multiplicity of things in space and time; on the other hand, the God of the prophets, whose unity, in contrast to the fabrications of mythology, consists in continuity of personal identity, but who, unlike the philosopher's god, can create a world outside himself.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Notice he contrasts the "omnipresent" god of the philosophers as one who is contained in the "everything" of the existence, and that everything in existence is inside of him, with the "God of the Prophets" who created existence apart from Himself (just as trinitarians believe).
                              I noticed how he addresses the "schizophrenia" and the contradiction of God being supposedly existing literally everywhere at once, yet creating something outside of Himself and also being literally omnipresent in that as well.

                              Again I quote CARM, the "Christian Apologetic and Research Ministry", who frequently criticize the LDS perspective:

                              Omnipresence:
                              Omnipresence is an attribute of God alone. It is the quality of being present in all places at all times (Jer. 23:23.4). He is not bound by time and space.


                              What did Cherbonnier say about the idea of God being in time and space?

                              From the first article I mentioned:

                              "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...."


                              Then from the second article:

                              The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."

                              So, in my last post to you, Cherbonnier indicates that we are the same kind of being that God is, as God is not "wholly other", and here above we see God being described as a "being among other beings". Please explain how you agree with these concepts, and please explain how you feel that Cherbonnier is disagreeing with the LDS point of view.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Cherbonnier differs from my view in that he claims the theophanies of the OT were God actually showing Himself, and my belief, like Augustine's were that they were temporary "created instruments of God’s presence" that ceased to exist after their disappearance. For instance, the pillar of fire, Solomon's Shekinah glory, the burning bush, Ezekiel's wheels, Daniel's finger, all were temporary creations by God in order for His presence to be visibly manifested. Once He was done with them, they disappeared from existence.
                              Nice try Bill. None of those references you just gave were actual theophanies. The real theophanies occured often in the Old Testament, for example, after Adam and Eve sinned and sewed fig leaves together, they "heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day"” (Genesis 3:8, God is literally walking in the garden). The implication is that God appeared in physical form since they heard Him walking in the garden prior to confronting Adam and Eve. Or when God appeared to Abram, such as Genesis 12:7, 17:1. The Shekinah glory was not a manifestation of God himself, but something that was cloaking God's actual physical appearance which was reserved for a chosen few, and only at certain specific times. For example, Jehovah did leave the pillar / cloud and did allow Himself to be seen within the Shekinah on certain occasions, "And the LORD appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar of a cloud: and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of the tabernacle." (Deut 31:15) More notably, was when the elders of Israel saw God, "Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.…(Ex 24:9-11). And of course, we know that when God transfigured Moses, "The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend." However, when not transfigured, Moses was not permitted to see God's face and God either covered his eyes with his hand or had Moses hid behind the cleft of a rock. Regardless, the presence of the Lord as a literal person in spacio-temporal reality is described, and there is no indication that such an existence was only for a moment and then destroyed.

                              So, you are forced in your mystic and Greek philosopher influenced theology to insist that these were just temporary manifestations, and the personage of God that was seen by witnesses just disappeared after the event took place. Likewise, you must imagine that angels appear in human form, temporarily, but then such form just evaporates afterwards. There is poor Biblical support for such a position, but that is the position you take, because as Cherbonnier explains, your per-conceived dogma influences how you interpret the text.

                              "...persons who interpret the Bible symbolically have made up their minds in advance in favor of the philosophers' God. They are therefore not prepared to hear what the Bible actually says, but only what they think it should say. By interpreting it symbolically, they subtly substitute the philosophers' God for the Bible's own, not after a fair hearing, but without one. Though the results may be convincing to the believer, the secular critic detects it for what it is..."

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              For the most part. For the former (the mystic god), Cherbonnier refers to their god who is wholly incapable of manifestation, vision, or experience, ever. He simply is wholly unable to be seen by anything as a matter of his existence. For the latter (the biblical God), Augustine describes similarly as Cherbonnier in refuting the Homoians. At the beginning of De Trinitate, Augustine explains Mt. 5:8:

                              Source: Augustine, The Trinity, Edmund Hill translation, The Works of Saint Augustine, Part I, Vol 5; p. 76


                              “The fact is that the man Christ Jesus, mediator of God and man, now reigning for all the just who live by faith, is going to bring them to direct sight of God, to a face-to-face vision... that is what is meant by `when he hands the kingdom over to God and the Father,’ as though to say `When he brings believers to a direct contemplation of God and the Father’.

                              © Copyright Original Source



                              Augustine’s judgment is that all three Persons of the Trinity will be seen only at the completion of history. It is Augustine's belief, as Cherbonnier notes as well, that God is invisible as a matter of principle, not nature.
                              Cherbonnier clearly argued that the Biblical God is NOT "invisible as a matter of principle" , but instead God can be seen, but chooses not reveal Himself fully at this time. Let's see it again shall we?

                              "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 ... 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."

                              So, the view he is criticizing is the idea that God is invisible as a matter of principle, or by nature, or as an eternal characteristic, or however you want to put it. In that view, as you just expressed, God creates some kind of transient puppet manifestation which will appear to men, but it is not truly God appearing, and then it dissipates. Meanwhile, Cherbonnier argues that God is spacio-temporal and has a visible appearance, but is "unseen" simply because God chooses not to be seen or revealed to the whole of humanity at this time.

                              However I, 7up, declare that God the Father DID reveal himself to the world in the sense that Jesus Christ is an exact replica/copy/duplicate of who and what God the Father is. If you see Jesus Christ, the resurrected Lord, then you have seen God the Father. Not because they are literally the same being or person, but instead because Jesus is the exact same kind of being as God the Father, and is also "one" with the Father in will and purpose.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              When I understand what Cherbonnier means by both of those words, yes. When he refers to "transcendent in the mystical sense", he means one who is unable to interact with his creation.
                              He goes well beyond that. He says that an immutable/unchanging/immanent God who exists outside space and time would not be one who interacts with spacio-temporal reality:

                              The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              When he mentions mystic "immanence", he means one who is diffused throughout the universe, meaning parts are here and parts are there (sort of like dumping a cup of sugar in a swimming pool), while wholly being unable to interact with it. He remains "wholly other", amongst creation but not actually in creation.
                              And then you come back to the schizophrenic viewpoint that you must hold. God is literally omnipresent, but at the same time is not literally everywhere in creation within the creation. All of this is unbiblical. As I said long ago, even the opening passages of the Bible describe the spirit of God as "hovering" over the primordial "waters" and moving across them when preparing to create from it. If God is literally omnipresent, there is no "moving" about it. And it would make no sense for Jesus to say, "hold me not, for I have not yet ascended unto my Father", because supposedly God is everywhere (literally omnipresent).

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              It differs slightly from my view in that His transcendence is far more than simply His sovereignty over it. He is both amongst creation and able to be in creation.
                              Again you fall back on saying that God is "both amongst creation and ... in creation" in some kind of literal omnipresence, which is a rather "mystic" viewpoint.

                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Had creation never occurred, God would still exist.
                              LDS agree that God existed before He created the Universe.

                              -7up
                              Last edited by seven7up; 06-12-2014, 02:38 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Would you please stop breaking up my posts!!!???

                                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                                Arguably, a God creating from absolutely nothing, creating an existence which is exactly what God himself has pre-imagined it to be, and thus is an extension of God's own imagination, is a form of pantheism, very similar to "PanENtheism".
                                You again have to redefine terms to force this "form". It plainly is not pantheism at its very core.


                                But again, it isn't just about God being impersonal, because Cherbonnier goes well beyond that in these two articles. He speaks against the idea that the Biblical God is literally omnipresent, against the idea that the Biblical God is immanent and transcendent, against the idea that the Biblical God has a supposed inherent characteristic of being "invisible", against the idea that the Biblical God exists outside of time and space. These are the same arguments that LDS make, and the same ideas that are criticized by non-LDS Christians.
                                No he does not!! In the article on anthropomorphism, Cherbonnier uses specific terms and specific definitions, which I have cited several times now. You and other LDS are using the same terms with different definitions, yet claiming they mean the same thing. What he means is not what you mean.


                                He never criticized it, he defended it, and he even argues that it is consistent with the Bible:

                                "Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."
                                No, he never defended it. He merely called it consistent. He never once said, yes God is an exalted human being, and that His "person" is one of flesh and bone.


                                Where did Cherbonnier say that?
                                Did I say he siad it? Did I cite him anywhere saying it?

                                I myself would not go beyond saying that the true God can exist outside time and space as we know and understand it.
                                That is William Lane Craig's understanding as well. I hold to the belief of classical theologians who declare the eternal "Now" that God exists in. But, I do realize this causes some other issues that I don't feel able to respond to from a philosophic standpoint.



                                He praised the consistency of LDS beliefs, AND criticized the inconsistency of believing in an anthropomorphic God who is also, and in contradiction, supposedly outside time and space, supposedly literally omnipresent, etc.
                                AS DEFINED BY THE MYSTICS AND PANTHEISTS



                                Only because the man allowed it, due to his spiritual weakness. But at least you are to the point of admitting that you are at odds with the perspective of Cherbonnier.
                                On this matter, yes. And he is absolutely wrong in this matter. I do not expect to agree 100% with everyone, nor do I expect anyone to be 100% correct, except Jesus Christ Himself. The Bible declares that


                                He barely stopped short of it, but existing in time and space implies having a corporeal existence.
                                No it doesn't. Spirits are non-corporeal, yet they exist in time and space. Even Talmage agreed that the spirit-man was not corporeal:

                                Source: Section 88 The Olive Leaf, Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, (2002), retrieved from lds.org


                                It is quite the rule to regard the soul as that incorporeal part of men, that immortal part which existed before the body was framed and which shall continue to exist after that body has gone to decay; nevertheless, that is not the soul; that is only a part of the soul; that is the spirit-man, the form in which every individual of us, and every individual human being, existed before called to take tabernacle in the flesh.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                And laypersons too agree that spirits are not corporeal:

                                Source: http://mormonfaq.com/faqs-part-2/why-do-mormons-baptize-for-the-dead


                                However, spirits cannot perform ordinances that can only be performed by corporeal beings

                                © Copyright Original Source





                                So explain where mainstream Christianity describes God as existing within time and space.
                                Omnipresence makes no sense if God is not existing within space right now.

                                Demonstrate where mainstream Christianity denies that God (referring to the Father) is "invisible" as part of his nature.
                                I've already cited Augustine's response to that, and I believe it suffices.

                                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                                Allow me to quote from CARM, the "Christian Apologetic Research Ministry", who are meant to be the mainstream Christians who oppose the LDS viewpoint.

                                Wholly Other:
                                "The term "wholly other" is used in Christain theology to describe the difference between God and everything else. God, the Christian God, is completely different than all other things that exist. God can be described by essential properties such as holiness, immutability, etc. But we have to ask how we, as finite creatures, can relate to the infinite God. It is difficult when he is "wholly other" than we are."
                                http://carm.org/dictionary-wholly-other
                                Matt also says

                                Source: http://carm.org/how-does-christianity-define-god-essence


                                He is "wholly other". This means he is not physical like we are. He is not limited to space and time as we are. He's different--not the same as us.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                Notice, Matt does not say that He is not personal, like Cherbonnier is using the term "wholly other" to describe mystic views. So, again, you are trying to shoehorn Cherbonnier's arguments where he had no intention of using them, and you are trying to mischaracterize Matt's beliefs.

                                Now let's see what Cherbonnier says about the idea of God being "wholly other":
                                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                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"
                                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                                I already quoted Cherbonnier's definition of what he meant by "wholly other". You, again, are using his words to mean something he is not saying.

                                Source: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/pdfs/elc-charts_logic-Bib-Anthr.pdf



                                "God can not be known: He or it is "wholly other" and beyond words. When man becomes one with God, even this is unknowable, because there is nothing and no one to be known

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                Emphasis mine

                                Now, if you honestly can sit there with a straight face and say that traditional Christians believe God is "nothing and no one", then there is no further hope for this conversation.

                                Which side are you going to take Bill?

                                -7up
                                Both, considering they both say essentially the same thing.
                                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.
                                Working...
                                X