Is God unable to create in kind? [Archive] - Walter Martin Ministries Forum

MacG

02-08-2010, 01:00 PM

All of God's creations (speaking of living creations) are a testimony of life producing life after its kind. That life begets life, in kind.

Is the God of orthodoxy unable to do this himself?

I thought this was clear on the other thread:

IS 46:9 For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,

Ripped from Answers.com:
Like:
prep.

1. Possessing the characteristics of; resembling closely; similar to.
2.
1. In the typical manner of: It's not like you to take offense.
2. In the same way as: lived like royalty.
3. Inclined or disposed to: felt like running away.
4. As if the probability exists for: looks like a bad year for farmers.
5. Such as; for example: saved things like old newspapers and pieces of string.

adj.

1. Possessing the same or almost the same characteristics; similar: on this and like occasions.
2. Alike: They are as like as two siblings.
3. Having equivalent value or quality. Usually used in negative sentences: There's nothing like a good night's sleep.

n.

1. One similar to or like another. Used with the: was subject to coughs, asthma, and the like.
2. Informal. An equivalent or similar person or thing; an equal or match. Often used in the plural: I've never seen the likes of this before. We'll never see his like again.

Blessings,

MacG

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-08-2010, 02:09 PM

I thought this was clear on the other thread:

So you believe God cannot create in kind.

Father_JD

02-08-2010, 02:16 PM

All of God's creations (speaking of living creations) are a testimony of life producing life after its kind. That life begets life, in kind.

Is the God of orthodoxy unable to do this himself?

You imply that makes God somehow less than "omnipotent", that He's "unable" to do this or that.

Again, you've done the Mormon "thing" and made a CATEGORICAL ERROR. You have likened the eternal, UNCREATE SELF-EXISTENT UNIQUE GOD unto created, mortal beings.

JS certainly succeeded in his DIMINUTION of God...that he's nothing more than a once-mortal schmuck who earned his godhood merit badge at some celestial jamboree. :rolleyes:

aaronshaf

02-08-2010, 02:24 PM

Libby

02-08-2010, 02:52 PM

Father_JD

02-08-2010, 02:57 PM

How can you create an uncreated being?

One can't, hence the category error made by Figgy. :rolleyes:

MacG

02-08-2010, 05:24 PM

So you believe God cannot create in kind.

To be sure, the God of the Bible cannot create another God of the Bible.

Neither can He create a rock so big the He Himself cannot lift it.

Blessings,

MacG

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-08-2010, 09:35 PM

How can you create an uncreated being?

You can't conjure up. But you can beget an uncreated being. Humans beget beings in kind all the time. Depending on your definition of "create" we don't create them do we?

nrajeff

02-08-2010, 09:39 PM

Libby

02-09-2010, 01:14 AM

You can't conjure up. But you can beget an uncreated being. Humans beget beings in kind all the time. Depending on your definition of "create" we don't create them do we?

No. God does that through the biological process He created.

I'm just saying, it's not logical that an "uncreated" being could be created. God has no beginning or end, so He was not created...He has always existed. How could, even HE, "create" something that has always existed?

MacG

02-09-2010, 01:36 AM

But you guys are missing an important implication of Fig's question:

Is the deity you believe in able to give lower beings the same abilities (knowledge, immortality, etc.) that the deity has?

The answer has to be either yes or no, and you guys are saying it's no, which is "interesting." CS Lewis and REAL Orthodox Christianity have taught that God IS able to do theosis--the glorification and edification of humans to the point of virtual deification. So the reader is forced to judge whether they--or you guys--are correct. I choose them. Logically, any omnipotent being should have the ability to share His abilities with other beings that He judges would be a good idea to share them with.

If you wanted to claim "Yes, God, being literally omnipotent (except in the case of irrational dilemmas like the rock one) is ABLE to do it, but He just doesn't WANT to" then that would have been another debate, that you ALSO would have lost, but you didn't choose that option. You chose "God is UNABLE to fully share His knowledge and abilities with any other being, and He never will be able to do it." So you are stuck with your statement.

I don't know from implications (perhaps you are used to looking for deficiencies where there are none) but Figs question is can God reproduce God? As in cats beget cats and man begets man etc reproducing after their own kind. The answer is no unless one takes the Q episodes of The Next Generation as gospel. The point that you raise though is different in this subtle way - those that He imparts gifts of knowledge and healings and glory as in Moses shining face, and the glorified bodies of flesh and bone in the future to etc. are not God the imparter/source of such things and are destined to be the creation for ever.

Blessings,

MacG

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-09-2010, 09:00 AM

No. God does that through the biological process He created.

I'm just saying, it's not logical that an "uncreated" being could be created. God has no beginning or end, so He was not created...He has always existed. How could, even HE, "create" something that has always existed?

So if God can create a biological process to beget life, why can't he create a spirit process to beget spirit life?

James Banta

02-09-2010, 09:24 AM

So if God can create a biological process to beget life, why can't he create a spirit process to beget spirit life?

I am not saying that He didn't create spirit.. The Bible says that He did.. He just did it within us.. (Zech 12:1) Mormonism denys that saying that god created our spirits and place our preexisting spirit in it.. Like most LDS doctrine this one is upside down.. IHS jim

stemelbow

02-09-2010, 09:28 AM

James Banta

02-09-2010, 11:31 AM

All of God's creations (speaking of living creations) are a testimony of life producing life after its kind. That life begets life, in kind.

Is the God of orthodoxy unable to do this himself?

You are right he can't do what isn't possible to do.. He can't create an uncreated being... He can't create NOTHING, He can't make things that don't exist.. He isn't a God of contradictions.. Your question is foolishness.. IHS jim

James Banta

02-09-2010, 11:39 AM

Interesting question in light of mainstreamism. How could Jesus' person be uncreated if His person was not around before God created? Did Jesus' person become uncreated the very moment God conjured up the idea that He needed a Jesus (man/God) to save mankind?

love,
stem

John 1:1-2
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
That seems to answer your question.. Jesus was with God and Jesus is God.. There was never a time when the Father "conjured up the idea that He needed a Jesus (man/God) to save mankind". God was always there and always knew what He was doing the whole time.. IHS jim

nrajeff

02-09-2010, 01:32 PM

I don't know from implications (perhaps you are used to looking for deficiencies where there are none)
---I don't know--I have been too busy finding deficiences where they DO exist, to get used to looking for what isn't there. :D
Of course, I am hardly the first to notice deficiencies in a few of the doctrines of "traditional" Christianity--Pastors Roger Williams, John Wesley, Sebastian Franck, et al noticed them way earlier.

but Figs question is can God reproduce God?
---Wouldn't you say that any being who is unable to reproduce is deficient? When inferior beings such as chimpanzees can have babies and teach those babies everything the parents know, and raise them to do everything the parents can do, how, logically thinking, could a DEITY be UNABLE to do similarly?

The point that you raise though is different in this subtle way - those that He imparts gifts of knowledge and healings and glory as in Moses shining face, and the glorified bodies of flesh and bone in the future to etc. are not God the imparter/source of such things and are destined to be the creation for ever.
---Let's take the issue a step at a time:

1. Is God able to have a child? Yes/No
If no, then God is deficient in at least one way.

2. If yes, is God able to impart to His children the ABILITIES and PERSONALITY TRAITS that He possesses (immortality, endless learning potential, wisdom, love, kindness, patience, etc.) ? Yes/No

Libby

02-09-2010, 01:57 PM

---I don't know--I have been too busy finding deficiences where they DO exist, to get used to looking for what isn't there. :D
Of course, I am hardly the first to notice deficiencies in a few of the doctrines of "traditional" Christianity--Pastors Roger Williams, John Wesley, Sebastian Franck, et al noticed them way earlier.

---Wouldn't you say that any being who is unable to reproduce is deficient? When inferior beings such as chimpanzees can have babies and teach those babies everything the parents know, and raise them to do everything the parents can do, how, logically thinking, could a DEITY be UNABLE to do similarly?

---Let's take the issue a step at a time:

1. Is God able to have a child? Yes/No
If no, then God is deficient in at least one way.

2. If yes, is God able to impart to His children the ABILITIES and PERSONALITY TRAITS that He possesses (immortality, endless learning potential, wisdom, love, kindness, patience, etc.) ? Yes/No

God clearly states (many times) that His children are "adopted" not pro-created. And I wouldn't at all presume that God is deficient in any way. But, He IS unique, as He also tells us many, many times in the Bible.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-09-2010, 04:02 PM

I am not saying that He didn't create spirit.. The Bible says that He did.. He just did it within us.. (Zech 12:1) Mormonism denys that saying that god created our spirits and place our preexisting spirit in it.. Like most LDS doctrine this one is upside down.. IHS jim

Not quite. You are confused. Care to try again?

Or you could always ask to find out what we really believe.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-09-2010, 04:17 PM

God clearly states (many times) that His children are "adopted" not pro-created. And I wouldn't at all presume that God is deficient in any way. But, He IS unique, as He also tells us many, many times in the Bible.

Actually we ARE created BY God in the beginning--as he says--in his image and likeness.

Then we may be born again through an adoption.

We are all unique, Libby.

When you bear children, you don't bear fully grown adults, or degreed lawyers or doctors. Children "become" as they progress.

nrajeff

02-09-2010, 04:21 PM

God clearly states (many times) that His children are "adopted" not pro-created.
---Let's see these "many" times where God CLEARLY stated that He is unable to have children except through adoption.

And I wouldn't at all presume that God is deficient in any way
---If you can do something good that He CAN'T, then "He is deficient" is the ONLY presumption available.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-09-2010, 04:40 PM

---Let's see these "many" times where God CLEARLY stated that He is unable to have children except through adoption.

---If you can do something good that He CAN'T, then "He is deficient" is the ONLY presumption available.

That would mean that God created creatures that CAN do what He CANNOT do.

James Banta

02-09-2010, 04:48 PM

Not quite. You are confused. Care to try again?

Or you could always ask to find out what we really believe.

Have you read and prayed about the meaning? Doesn't sound. I could get as hateful as you did here and was very tempted to be so.. Maybe you should take some time off so you can treat others with a level a civility..IHS jim

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-09-2010, 05:47 PM

Have you read and prayed about the meaning? Doesn't sound. I could get as hateful as you did here and was very tempted to be so.. Maybe you should take some time off so you can treat others with a level a civility..IHS jim

I'm just saying that your information wasn't quite right. If you would like to be corrected, all you need do is ask...politely.

MacG

02-09-2010, 08:48 PM

That would mean that God created creatures that CAN do what He CANNOT do.

So when a scientist genetically modifies corn to create a new species but cannot bear corn ears himself, the scientist is lesser than the creation?

MacG

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-09-2010, 11:10 PM

So when a scientist genetically modifies corn to create a new species but cannot bear corn ears himself, the scientist is lesser than the creation?

MacG

No, it just means the scientist can't beget out of kind. He might be able to create a new type of corn, that is actually steril, but he is not 'begetting' it. Nor would I say that God begets corn, as corn is not his kind.

My question was about begetting in kind.

MacG

02-09-2010, 11:49 PM

My question was about begetting in kind.

Oh. Perhaps you haven't seen this before:

IS 46:9 For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,

Ripped from Answers.com:
Like:
prep.

1. Possessing the characteristics of; resembling closely; similar to.

adj.

1. Possessing the same or almost the same characteristics; similar: on this and like occasions.
2. Alike: They are as like as two siblings.
3. Having equivalent value or quality. Usually used in negative sentences: There's nothing like a good night's sleep.

n.

1. One similar to or like another. Used with the: was subject to coughs, asthma, and the like.
2. Informal. An equivalent or similar person or thing; an equal or match. Often used in the plural: I've never seen the likes of this before. We'll never see his like again.

If He can, He hasn't and apparently does not intend to:

"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.

MacG

aaronshaf

02-10-2010, 01:39 AM

The short answer is "yes" to the original question.

But the answer is "yes" in Mormonism as well. In Mormonism, God does not really create after his own kind. In fact, his own kind are beings that are co-eternal and self-existent. Our particular God didn't given them their existence, and at spirit birth (if you affirm the traditional view of viviparous spirit-birth) he doesn't technically "make them after his own kind"; he merely clothes an existing co-eternal self-existent being already of the same fundamental species with a spirit-body.

Put more succinctly, the Mormon God doesn't have the ability to create beings of the same species. He only has the ability to clothe co-eternal beings of the same species with different kinds of bodies.

What I said here applies equally to the idea of begetting. The Mormon God can neither create nor beget after his own kind. The fundamental species of being is already there. The co-eternal beings are already there. The Mormon God doesn't beget their very being. He merely gives them a spirit body. His "begetting" is not of a being after his own kind, but of a body after his own kind.

So criticism against Christianity for not having a God that can create or beget after his own kind is self-defeating.

In Mormonism, ALL persons are self-existent and co-eternal. Technically, NONE are created or begotten. Their key stages of development are really marked by the addition of bodies, not by the begetting or creation of their species or being.

Libby

02-10-2010, 02:25 AM

What I said here applies equally to the idea of begetting. The Mormon God can neither create nor beget after his own kind. The fundamental species of being is already there. The co-eternal beings are already there. The Mormon God doesn't beget their very being. He merely gives them a spirit body. His "begetting" is not of a being after his own kind, but of a body after his own kind.

So criticism against Christianity for not having a God that can create or beget after his own kind is self-defeating.

In Mormonism, ALL persons are self-existent and co-eternal. Technically, NONE are created or begotten. Their key stages of development are really marked by the addition of bodies, not by the begetting or creation of their species or being.

Yes, that's a very good point, Aaron.

Libby

02-10-2010, 02:31 AM

---Let's see these "many" times where God CLEARLY stated that He is unable to have children except through adoption.

I don't think He is saying that. I'm just telling you that he makes it clear that WE are not his "biological" children.

---If you can do something good that He CAN'T, then "He is deficient" is the ONLY presumption available. [/QUOTE]

No, not at all. And we really had nothing to do with the pro-creative process, so in a real sense that was from God. He is the Creator of our spirits and He was the Creator of all biological processes.

James Banta

02-10-2010, 10:07 AM

I'm just saying that your information wasn't quite right. If you would like to be corrected, all you need do is ask...politely.

I am saying that being corrected by someone who looks to a man like Joseph Smith as being a prophet of God has nothing to teach anyone.. My doctrine is correct being Biblical. Just by saying that it isn't shows that you are so far from God's truth that you have much more to learn than you have to teach.. IHS jim

stemelbow

02-10-2010, 10:25 AM

John 1:1-2
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
That seems to answer your question.. Jesus was with God and Jesus is God.. There was never a time when the Father "conjured up the idea that He needed a Jesus (man/God) to save mankind". God was always there and always knew what He was doing the whole time.. IHS jim

Your ***umptions that you have read into John address my question a little but not wholly. The p***age does not come close to answering my question as it is. So are you saying that there never was a time when Jesus' person was not? Was there a point when God was but one person?

love,
stem

nrajeff

02-10-2010, 11:02 AM

I don't think He is saying that. I'm just telling you that he makes it clear that WE are not his "biological" children.
--Does that include Jesus---Jesus is only the ADOPTED Son of God? 'Cause most Bibles I have consulted are "deficient" :D as far as the word 'adopted' is concerned there. Remember, the issue is whether or not God has the ABILITY to father children of His own kind or nature or substance or species or whatever word is P.C. these days.

---If you can do something good that He CAN'T, then "He is deficient" is the ONLY presumption available. [/QUOTE]

No, not at all.
---So you are on record as stating that you believe that God creates beings who are able to do good things that God Himself is unable to do? How does that NOT "degrade" God? How does it NOT validate Joseph Smith's famous "boast"?

And we really had nothing to do with the pro-creative process
----My wife and I had NOTHING to do with bringing our kids into this world? I don't think my wife would agree with that. :)

so in a real sense that was from God. He is the Creator of our spirits and He was the Creator of all biological processes
---Yes, ultimately, indirectly, everything we do could be equivocated into being God's doing, but that forces you to include all the BAD things we and Satan do. Try to be a little more Arminian--it's good for you! :)

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-10-2010, 12:37 PM

Oh. Perhaps you haven't seen this before:

IS 46:9 For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me,

I've read that before. It makes a good cross reference to Exodus 8:8-10 which says:

8 ¶ Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, and said, Intreat the Lord, that he may take away the frogs from me, and from my people; and I will let the people go, that they may do sacrifice unto the Lord.
9 And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Glory over me: when shall I intreat for thee, and for thy servants, and for thy people, to destroy the frogs from thee and thy houses, that they may remain in the river only?
10 And he said, To morrow. And he said, Be it according to thy word: that thou mayest know that there is none like unto the Lord our God.

Plus these cross references. (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/46/9d)

In each of these cases, the context is either
1) That idols and gods of the heathen are not to be compared with the living God of Israel.

OR

2) That there is only One God and One Savior with which mankind has anything to do.

Both of these, I agree with.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-10-2010, 12:41 PM

I am saying that being corrected by someone who looks to a man like Joseph Smith as being a prophet of God has nothing to teach anyone.. My doctrine is correct being Biblical. Just by saying that it isn't shows that you are so far from God's truth that you have much more to learn than you have to teach.. IHS jim

So your representation of LDS beliefs was not correct, and you don't want to be corrected? OK, Got it.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-10-2010, 12:47 PM

James Banta

02-10-2010, 01:08 PM

So your representation of LDS beliefs was not correct, and you don't want to be corrected? OK, Got it.

Since there are just about as many views of what mormonism is as there are mormons I an not surprised that you think I am wrong.. I guess when I was among you I had a different view of what the doctrine was.. Now if I have to beg you to share your view I am not interested.. I will just see you as one more mormon that believes they can pick and choose the commandments they want to keep.. As I read the Great Commission I see that I am called to tell the whole world about my faith..

Matthew 28:19-20
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
That is my interpretation of the p***age I don't know or understand how you could get anything else out of it.. IHS jim

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-10-2010, 02:42 PM

Since there are just about as many views of what mormonism is as there are mormons I an not surprised that you think I am wrong.. I guess when I was among you I had a different view of what the doctrine was.. Now if I have to beg you to share your view I am not interested...

Well, I suppose that sometimes maintaining one's ignorance is the best comfort he can find.

James Banta

02-10-2010, 03:08 PM

Well, I suppose that sometimes maintaining one's ignorance is the best comfort he can find.

So that's what you are doing... I challenged my belief in mormonism and that challenge lead me to truth.. You have not even looked into the the if the teachings of Joseph Smith were true or where his later teachings came from.. You haven't worked out how God being Spirit can be true when Smith said that God isn't a spirit but a person of flesh and bone (D&C 130:22).. Or why a Book translated by the power of God had to undergo over 3,000 changes to get it right.. Or how David and Solomon could be an abomination in Jacob 2 of the BofM and justified in the 132 section of the D&C.. Why is the Bible so completely adamant that salvation is by God's grace through faith (John 3:15-16, Eph 2:8-9) and yet Joseph Smith have built in works that are the requirements (water baptism, laying on of hands, priesthoods, and temple endowment) for everlasting life?

Yes It looks as though I just gave up real truth and ran into error doesn't? NOT.. I actually look deep into the error and begged Jesus to forgive me and make me His child (John 1:12).. IHS jim

Father_JD

02-10-2010, 03:35 PM

Is the deity you believe in able to give lower beings the same abilities (knowledge, immortality, etc.) that the deity has?

Jeff. Please look up "communicable attributes" as well as "incommunicable attributes" regarding the God of the Bible.

nrajeff

02-10-2010, 04:12 PM

Jeff. Please look up "communicable attributes" as well as "incommunicable attributes" regarding the God of the Bible.

--- "Communicable attributes"--is that something the Centers for Disease Control study? :D

Why can't you just answer my question about what you "feel" God is UNABLE to do?

1. Is He really UNABLE to have children--is He doomed to only be a parent by ADOPTION? Y/N

2. Is He really UNABLE to share with (or teach to) anyone He deems it appropriate, His wisdom, knowledge, love, and immortality? Y/N

That's all you need to do, FJD....all you need to, that is, in order to show what a fraud your theology is. :eek:

MacG

02-10-2010, 10:26 PM

2) That there is only One God and One Savior with which mankind has anything to do.

This is superfluous because there is only One God - period. See:

IS 46:9 For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me..."

"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.

Blessings,

MacG

Libby

02-11-2010, 03:15 AM

--Does that include Jesus---Jesus is only the ADOPTED Son of God?.

Is this a serious question? Jesus was/is God. His Spirit was not created or begotten. You also need to take note that he was the ONLY begotten Son of God (and that does not mean begotten in the same way you and I were). The rest of His children are adopted, and, originally, inherited a very different nature, from their father, Adam.

---If you can do something good that He CAN'T, then "He is deficient" is the ONLY presumption available.

I disagree. God is not deficient in any way. Actually, there are none "good" BUT Him. Another little something in the Bible that is often forgotten.

---So you are on record as stating that you believe that God creates beings who are able to do good things that God Himself is unable to do? How does that NOT "degrade" God? How does it NOT validate Joseph Smith's famous "boast"?

As I said, all good things come from God, including the ability to pro-create. God has given man many good things. The fact that He is above the need for some of it, certainly doesn't make Him less. You are looking at God from your own human perspective, Jeff. He is very different from us in many ways (also biblical - His ways are not our ways).

----My wife and I had NOTHING to do with bringing our kids into this world? I don't think my wife would agree with that. :)

Well, I would have to agree with her, in some respects, as I bore three children of my own. :p But, you are overstepping my point (you do that a lot), which is...without God we are nothing/non-existent.. and we have nothing, to which He cannot lay claim.

---Yes, ultimately, indirectly, everything we do could be equivocated into being God's doing, but that forces you to include all the BAD things we and Satan do. Try to be a little more Arminian--it's good for you! :)

What is good for me (and for you) is the truth. :)

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-11-2010, 09:59 AM

This is superfluous because there is only One God - period. See:

IS 46:9 For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is no one like Me..."

"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.

Blessings,

MacG

In each of these cases, the context is either
1) That idols and gods of the heathen are not to be compared with the living God of Israel.

OR

2) That there is only One God and One Savior with which mankind has anything to do.

Both of these, I agree with.

Thanks.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-11-2010, 10:02 AM

So that's what you are doing... I challenged my belief in mormonism and that challenge lead me to truth.. You have not even looked into the the if the teachings of Joseph Smith were true or where his later teachings came from.. You haven't worked out how God being Spirit can be true when Smith said that God isn't a spirit but a person of flesh and bone (D&C 130:22).. Or why a Book translated by the power of God had to undergo over 3,000 changes to get it right.. Or how David and Solomon could be an abomination in Jacob 2 of the BofM and justified in the 132 section of the D&C.. Why is the Bible so completely adamant that salvation is by God's grace through faith (John 3:15-16, Eph 2:8-9) and yet Joseph Smith have built in works that are the requirements (water baptism, laying on of hands, priesthoods, and temple endowment) for everlasting life?

Yes It looks as though I just gave up real truth and ran into error doesn't? NOT.. I actually look deep into the error and begged Jesus to forgive me and make me His child (John 1:12).. IHS jim

But it looks like either a) you never understood LDS doctrine when you were IN the Church. or b) you forgot what you believed, and now are bent on misrepresenting yourself by making statements that are not accurate.

James Banta

02-11-2010, 11:30 AM

But it looks like either a) you never understood LDS doctrine when you were IN the Church. or b) you forgot what you believed, and now are bent on misrepresenting yourself by making statements that are not accurate.

If and when I misrepresent church doctrine point it out.. I have been in Gospel Doctrine cl***es where members have disagreed on points of doctrine before.. Just because you say what the doctrine of the church is doesn't make it so.. IHS jim

akaSeerone

02-11-2010, 11:30 AM

But it looks like either a) you never understood LDS doctrine when you were IN the Church. or b) you forgot what you believed, and now are bent on misrepresenting yourself by making statements that are not accurate.
Why are you so bent on lying?

Do you think that will somehow change the fact that mormonism is a false religion and in no way whatsoever Christian?

Andy

James Banta

02-11-2010, 11:38 AM

Your ***umptions that you have read into John address my question a little but not wholly. The p***age does not come close to answering my question as it is. So are you saying that there never was a time when Jesus' person was not? Was there a point when God was but one person?

love,
stem

God has always been God he changes NOT.. He has always been as He is now.. He said so Himself:

Mal 3:6
For I am the LORD, I change not...
Of course there are cultist that deny Him and His word... IHS jim

akaSeerone

02-11-2010, 01:02 PM

If and when I misrepresent church doctrine point it out.. I have been in Gospel Doctrine cl***es where members have disagreed on points of doctrine before.. Just because you say what the doctrine of the church is doesn't make it so.. IHS jim
You got that right Jim.

How many times have we seen mormons on these boards claim that even the things that Smith and Young said were not doctrine even though they taught it as doctrine?

Andy

nrajeff

02-11-2010, 02:51 PM

Is this a serious question?
---It is as serious as your claim that it's impossible for God to have children was. What happened to "With God, all things are possible" ?

Jesus was/is God.
---Well then, Quiz time: Has it NEVER been possible for JESUS to have children?
a) yes, it's never been possible
b) no, the possibility has existed

His Spirit was not created or begotten.
--But His Father IS the Father of SPIRITS, acc. to the Bible. Plus you have His statements in the Bible saying that He IS God's Son, and He never uses the word "ADOPTED" in there as a qualifier. Funny how some people waste no time taking "I and my Father are one" literally, but when it comes to Jesus being the Son of God, all of a sudden it's "No, that's impossible, God can't have sons, Jesus must have meant that metaphorically."

You also need to take note that he was the ONLY begotten Son of God (and that does not mean begotten in the same way you and I were).

---If God has one begotten son, then that refutes the idea that having a son is an impossibility for Him. And how do YOU know what the word "begotten" was intended ---and NOT intended --to mean by the NT authors?

I disagree. God is not deficient in any way.
---If it's not evil to have kids, and if humans can have kids, and if God CAN'T have kids, then God gave humans abilities that He Himself does not have, which is really illogical if you think about it.

As I said, all good things come from God, including the ability to pro-create.
---Great, you admit that procreation is a GOOD THING and that it is a God-given ability. So how can you believe that God is INCAPABLE of doing a good thing that He knew how to enable HUMANS to?? Makes no sense, just like much of "traditional Christian dogma" because it evolved during the supers***ious Dark Ages..

The fact that He is above the need for some of it, certainly doesn't make Him less.
---The issue is not what God NEEDS. It's what He is ABLE to do.

Well, I would have to agree with her, in some respects, as I bore three children of my own. :p But, you are overstepping my point (you do that a lot),
---I ****YZE your point and take it to its conclusion, which is something many people are afraid to do by themselves. I am just a "helper" in that dept.

which is...without God we are nothing/non-existent.. and we have nothing, to which He cannot lay claim.
---Including our EVIL? You said there's NOTHING we have that He can't claim as His. Anyhow, your point is irrelevant since without YOUR parents, YOU wouldn't be here, yet that doesn't prove that your parents lacked any abilities that they gave to YOU, including your ability to procreate.

Father_JD

02-11-2010, 03:44 PM

---It is as serious as your claim that it's impossible for God to have children was. What happened to "With God, all things are possible" ?

What happened to CONTEXT, jeff? :eek:

You've cited Jesus' words regarding SALVATION. You've misapplied the text as Mormons are wont to do.

We KNOW from God's SELF-REVELATION, ya know, that compilation called, "The Holy Bible" that there are certain things God can't do:

1. Lie
2. Do anything CONTRARY to His NATURE.
3. And NO, God can't create a rock that's too heavy for Him to lift...the ol' Mormon "poser" which no Christian theologian would consider valid. :rolleyes:

Father_JD

02-11-2010, 03:52 PM

It's INCORRECT to label an "Incommunicable attribute" of God as if He's somehow "unable" to do something, in this case communicate His attribute of ETERNALITY and UNCREATEDNESS.

God can NOT lie.
God can NOT do anything CONTRARY to His own Holy nature.

Since God is UNCREATE (we're talking about the biblical deity and NOT the Mormon one, btw), He is UNIQUE, in a cl*** by Himself (I'm referring to God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...NOT just the "Father").

So the answer is NO, God is "unable" to make another DEITY such as Himself, because THAT "deity" could NOT BE UNCREATED.

Got it now?

nrajeff

02-11-2010, 07:15 PM

Since God is UNCREATE (we're talking about the biblical deity and NOT the Mormon one, btw), He is UNIQUE, in a cl*** by Himself (I'm referring to God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...NOT just the "Father").So the answer is NO, God is "unable" to make another DEITY such as Himself, because THAT "deity" could NOT BE UNCREATED.

----Bzzzzt, non sequitur. You're gonna wear out the buzzer if you don't start making some correct statements. Let me walk you through your fallacious conclusion:

1. Let's ***ume you believe that God has all the knowledge and wisdom and immortality that a person can possess.
2. Let us also ***ume that you believe that God is omnipotent.
3. Even if God is unable to make another uncreated being, He STILL should be ABLE to give a CREATED being immortality and the knowledge, and wisdom that He has.

Your reasoning that goes "Since I believe God is uncreate, then it's impossible for Him to share His ABILITIES" is a non sequitur, since it DOES NOT FOLLOW that His being uncreate handicaps Him the way you are trying to hanicap Him.

nrajeff

02-11-2010, 07:23 PM

What happened to CONTEXT, jeff? :eek:
You've cited Jesus' words regarding SALVATION.
---So you're saying that "ALL THINGS" does not really mean literally all things? Good, we are making progress with you. Now if you can just consistently apply that to "Jesus created ALL THINGS" and "ALL have sinned," then you will be consistent.

We KNOW from God's SELF-REVELATION, ya know, that compilation called, "The Holy Bible" that there are certain things God can't do:

1. Lie
2. Do anything CONTRARY to His NATURE.
---You forgot to mention "Have children." And "add to His "self-revelation" and "call prophets after the 1st century B.C." Come on, if you think God is so limited, you gotta list ALL the things you think He's unable to do even though your creed labels Him omnipotent.

3. And NO, God can't create a rock that's too heavy for Him to lift...the ol' Mormon "poser" which no Christian theologian would consider valid. :rolleyes
--Um, that did NOT come from the LDS-we tend to be more logical than that. Heck, we are the ones who believe there is LOTS of stuff that God is able to do--have children, and send His Son to the Americas, and make humans like Himself, for example. So give your straw man a rest.

Libby

02-11-2010, 08:08 PM

Jeff.......God tells us that He is the Only One and that He is the Creator of ALL that Is. Putting aside what God may or may not be able to do, why would He lie to us and tell us He is the only One and the Creator of "All That Is", if He really meant that He is NOT the only god and NOT the Creator of All That Is.....which does, btw, seriously limit His power and authority.

nrajeff

02-11-2010, 09:00 PM

Jeff.......God tells us that He is the Only One and that He is the Creator of ALL that Is.
----This thread isn't about whether or not we can become "creators of all things." It's about whether you are correct to ***ume that an omnipotent God is unable to procreate. I say you are incorrect to ***ume it.

Putting aside what God may or may not be able to do

--Why are you trying to put aside the TOPIC OF THE THREAD? Didn't you just lecture me on the evils of straying off-topic?

MacG

02-11-2010, 11:23 PM

In each of these cases, the context is either
1) That idols and gods of the heathen are not to be compared with the living God of Israel.

It is more like there is no comparison because there are no other gods:

6"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
7'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
8'Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.'"

OR

2) That there is only One God and One Savior

This part is true.

with which mankind has anything to do.

This makes me think that you mean that there are more Gods like God (unlike the type of god listed below) and only one that matters to earthlings.

18They do not know, nor do they understand, for He has smeared over their eyes so that they cannot see and their hearts so that they cannot comprehend. No one recalls, nor is there knowledge or understanding to say, "I have burned half of it in the fire and also have baked bread over its coals I roast meat and eat it Then I make the rest of it into an abomination, I fall down before a block of wood!" He feeds on ashes; a deceived heart has turned him aside And he cannot deliver himself, nor say, "Is there not a lie in my right hand?"

Blessings,

MacG

Libby

02-11-2010, 11:53 PM

----This thread isn't about whether or not we can become "creators of all things." It's about whether you are correct to ***ume that an omnipotent God is unable to procreate. I say you are incorrect to ***ume it.

--Why are you trying to put aside the TOPIC OF THE THREAD? Didn't you just lecture me on the evils of straying off-topic?

Actually, what I pointed out is very relevant to this thread. If He is the One and Only and is Creator of ALL that is, then it's obvious that He will not be creating any other en***ies like Himself. Some of that "logic" stuff you like to throw around. ;)

nrajeff

02-12-2010, 11:31 AM

Actually, what I pointed out is very relevant to this thread. If He is the One and Only and is Creator of ALL that is, then it's obvious that He will not be creating any other en***ies like Himself. Some of that "logic" stuff you like to throw around. ;)

---Nope, nice try, but you committed a non sequitur, perhaps combined with a straw man. EVEN IF God is the creator of all that is, it does NOT necessarily prevent Him from givng virtually ALL his abilities to another person. Heck, He could even give the ability to create another universe to someone, since that as-yet-uncreated universe hasn't been created yet, and therefore doesn't conflict with the description of God as the creator of all that IS. It's really an extension of the logic that refutes the idea that if God has the ability to be immortal, that makes Him unable to make someone else immortal too.

Libby

02-12-2010, 01:03 PM

---Nope, nice try, but you committed a non sequitur, perhaps combined with a straw man. EVEN IF God is the creator of all that is, it does NOT necessarily prevent Him from givng virtually ALL his abilities to another person. Heck, He could even give the ability to create another universe to someone, since that as-yet-uncreated universe hasn't been created yet, and therefore doesn't conflict with the description of God as the creator of all that IS. It's really an extension of the logic that refutes the idea that if God has the ability to be immortal, that makes Him unable to make someone else immortal too.

This is really simple, Jeff. If God allowed someone else to create anything, even a speck of sand, He would no longer BE the Creator of All That Is. He, also, would no longer be the One and only Creator (no God beside Me).

nrajeff

02-12-2010, 01:22 PM

This is really simple, Jeff.
---I know. It IS simple: You need to quit limiting God's abilities. If you think He's UNABLE to teach someone else how to create something, then you have gravely underestimated what God is able to do. Heck, what do you think inspiration is? It's God teaching someone how to do something that God Himself already knows how to do. What--you don't think He could be that good a teacher? Then think again.

If God allowed someone else to create anything, even a speck of sand, He would no longer BE the Creator of All That Is. He, also, would no longer be the One and only Creator (no God beside Me).
---So which is it that you don't believe about God:

a) that He is ABLE to teach others how to do what He can do; or

b) that He is just UNWILLING to ALLOW anyone else to do what He can do
???? Either way, you are showing that you have a low opinion of God. Maybe you should re-think the theology that you have signed onto.

Libby

02-12-2010, 02:37 PM

---I know. It IS simple: You need to quit limiting God's abilities. If you think He's UNABLE to teach someone else how to create something, then you have gravely underestimated what God is able to do. Heck, what do you think inspiration is? It's God teaching someone how to do something that God Himself already knows how to do. What--you don't think He could be that good a teacher? Then think again.

---So which is it that you don't believe about God:

a) that He is ABLE to teach others how to do what He can do; or

b) that He is just UNWILLING to ALLOW anyone else to do what He can do
???? Either way, you are showing that you have a low opinion of God. Maybe you should re-think the theology that you have signed onto.

I believe God's Word, where He says:

Isaiah 43:10

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

and

Colossians 1:16-17

"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."

akaSeerone

02-12-2010, 02:46 PM

Father_JD

02-12-2010, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
What happened to CONTEXT, jeff?
You've cited Jesus' words regarding SALVATION.

---So you're saying that "ALL THINGS" does not really mean literally all things? Good, we are making progress with you. Now if you can just consistently apply that to "Jesus created ALL THINGS" and "ALL have sinned," then you will be consistent.

That's just it, jeff. One can NOT CONSISTENTLY ram-rod ONE meaning of any given biblical term into ALL CONTEXTS! If I've said it once I've said it dozens of times here: CONTEXT DETERMINES MEANING, I.E. USAGE. Why are you still playing this game?

Quote:
We KNOW from God's SELF-REVELATION, ya know, that compilation called, "The Holy Bible" that there are certain things God can't do:

1. Lie
2. Do anything CONTRARY to His NATURE.

---You forgot to mention "Have children." And "add to His "self-revelation" and "call prophets after the 1st century B.C." Come on, if you think God is so limited, you gotta list ALL the things you think He's unable to do even though your creed labels Him omnipotent.

God can NOT create another "deity", jeff. God is the SELF-EXISTENT one (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who inhabits eternity. God is BY NATURE UNCREATE. Anyone else or thing is CREATED. Mormonism consistently confuses the Creator with CREATION. :eek:

Quote:
3. And NO, God can't create a rock that's too heavy for Him to lift...the ol' Mormon "poser" which no Christian theologian would consider valid. :rolleyes

--Um, that did NOT come from the LDS-we tend to be more logical than that. Heck, we are the ones who believe there is LOTS of stuff that God is able to do--have children, and send His Son to the Americas, and make humans like Himself, for example. So give your straw man a rest.

That's EXACTLY where I heard it...at the local "ward", jeff. :rolleyes:

Father_JD

02-12-2010, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
Since God is UNCREATE (we're talking about the biblical deity and NOT the Mormon one, btw), He is UNIQUE, in a cl*** by Himself (I'm referring to God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...NOT just the "Father").So the answer is NO, God is "unable" to make another DEITY such as Himself, because THAT "deity" could NOT BE UNCREATED.

----Bzzzzt, non sequitur. You're gonna wear out the buzzer if you don't start making some correct statements. Let me walk you through your fallacious conclusion:

"Non-sequitur"? jeff...please go look up the word. I've given you the EXACT REASON WHY.

1. Let's ***ume you believe that God has all the knowledge and wisdom and immortality that a person can possess.

I don't believe that because this is NOT what the biblical revelation teaches, jeff. Better put, NO person can, does, or ever will possess "all the knowledge, wisdom or immortality" that GOD POSSESSES. You confuse the Creator with the creation. In a nutshell, your "god" is no more than the Greek demi-gods of mythology.

2. Let us also ***ume that you believe that God is omnipotent.

Again, I must ask you to confine the meaning to BIBLICAL USAGE, and not your Mormon misunderstanding of the word. :rolleyes:

3. Even if God is unable to make another uncreated being, He STILL should be ABLE to give a CREATED being immortality and the knowledge, and wisdom that He has.

Nope. Ya wanna know why, jeff? 'Cause God is INFINITE, and we human beings are FINITE. God's attribute of infinity is an UNCOMMUNICABLE ATTRIBUTE. Why are Mos so confused by the obvious??

Your reasoning that goes "Since I believe God is uncreate, then it's impossible for Him to share His ABILITIES" is a non sequitur, since it DOES NOT FOLLOW that His being uncreate handicaps Him the way you are trying to hanicap Him.

God HAS communicated SOME of His attributes to us. This is WHY scripture says that man was "created in God's Image". Mormonism unfortunately has created god in man's image. :rolleyes:

nrajeff

02-12-2010, 03:45 PM

I believe God's Word, where He says:
Isaiah 43:10
"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."
and
Colossians 1:16-17
"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."

---That is great that you believe that God and Jesus created everything that had been created up to that point. But it's NOT so great that you tried to use those verses to reach the unfounded, illogical, and God-LIMITING EISEGESIS that God and Jesus therefore are UNABLE to TEACH other people what They know. Those 2 verses do NOT say ANYTHING about God being limited in that regard. To have such a low opinion of His abilities--to think that an omnipotent God can't teach what He knows to others--is a surprising position for a professed believer in the "3 omnis" to hold.

Father_JD

02-12-2010, 04:24 PM

Who said that God Triune is "unable to teach other people what They know", jeff?

What you consistenly FAIL to understand is that God Triune IS INFINITE, and we creatures are FINITE.

Consequently, there can only be a LIMIT as to HOW MUCH we can be taught.

You confuse the Creator with the creation.

MacG

02-12-2010, 05:34 PM

nrajeff

02-12-2010, 09:46 PM

"Non-sequitur"? jeff...please go look up the word.
---I did look it up, and your picture was there. :) Maybe you missed THIS:

Your reasoning that goes "Since I believe God is uncreate, then it's impossible for Him to share His ABILITIES" is a non sequitur, since it DOES NOT FOLLOW that His being uncreate handicaps Him the way you are trying to hanicap Him.

You must really hate the idea that even an uncreated God is able to teach other people all the stuff He knows. Too bad. There is no law prohibiting Him from doing it. And frankly, I find your tantrums about God having such an ability troubling and comical at the same time.

Nope. Ya wanna know why, jeff? 'Cause God is INFINITE, and we human beings are FINITE. God's attribute of infinity is an UNCOMMUNICABLE ATTRIBUTE.
--That is just metaphysical mumbo-jumbo that, at the end of the day, does NOT limit God. You're gonna have an infinite lifespan in heaven, are you not? So even someone with as pathetically limited imagination as you, has all the time in the universe to learn what God wants to teach you. If He has an INFINITE amount of time to impart His knowledge and wisdom to you, then what limits your potential? YOU do. If you don't want to "partake of that divine nature," then don't. But don't you dare tell GOD that He is UNABLE to give it to you. Sheesh, you're supposed to be the guys that believe that God is so omnipotent, and here you are desperately trying to limit God. It's really fun to watch.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-12-2010, 11:11 PM

It is more like there is no comparison because there are no other gods:

6"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
7'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
8'Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.'"

Again this is spoken in the context of pagan gods and idols.

True. We have not God but the God of Israel. This is not saying that there are no other gods in existence. But a declaration of WHO the God of Israel is.

This makes me think that you mean that there are more Gods like God (unlike the type of god listed below) and only one that matters to earthlings.

God has revealed very little about worlds and heavens beyond what pertains to us directly. It is no wonder that so many people think that what lives upon this world is the extent of humanity throughout all of existence.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-12-2010, 11:17 PM

If and when I misrepresent church doctrine point it out..

OK, when you said this:

Mormonism denys that saying that god created our spirits and place our preexisting spirit in it.. Like most LDS doctrine this one is upside down.. IHS jim

Do you see what is misrepresentative about this?

aaronshaf

02-13-2010, 01:37 AM

Then your God isn't begetting a being in kind, but rather begetting a body in kind for a being what was already in kind before he or his body was ever begotten. Get it?

Libby

02-13-2010, 02:29 AM

Then your God isn't begetting a being in kind, but rather begetting a body in kind for a being what was already in kind before he or his body was ever begotten. Get it?

Yes, exactly! :)

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-13-2010, 12:12 PM

Then your God isn't begetting a being in kind, but rather begetting a body in kind for a being what was already in kind before he or his body was ever begotten. Get it?

Actually, you aren't far off. Hence the tie in with references in Genesis to "image" and "likeness".

¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Gen 1:26)

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (Genesis 5:3)

Do you know what "beget" means?

Here from Miriam-Webster:
1 : to procreate as the father : sire
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth

Just as man does not ex nihilo conjure up life when we beget in kind, neither does God conjure up our existence when he begets in kind.

akaSeerone

02-13-2010, 12:34 PM

Actually, you aren't far off. Hence the tie in with references in Genesis to "image" and "likeness".

¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Gen 1:26)

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (Genesis 5:3)

Do you know what "beget" means?

Here from Miriam-Webster:
1 : to procreate as the father : sire
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth

Just as man does not ex nihilo conjure up life when we beget in kind, neither does God conjure up our existence when he begets in kind.
Genesis does not say that God begot us.

So what do you have to say now?

Andy

nrajeff

02-13-2010, 03:04 PM

Genesis does not say that God begot us.

So what do you have to say now?

Andy

---I'd say that Hebrews 12:9 points out that God is the father of spirits. :D

aaronshaf

02-13-2010, 07:02 PM

Hebrews 12:9? I'll paste what I wrote yesterday elsewhere:

the "Father of spirits" reference comes from Hebrews 12 but LDS usage fails to notice the surrounding context. Verse 8 reads, "If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons."

So given that Mormons want to take verse 9 ultra-literally, we have to ask: Are there illegitimate spirit children here on earth? Did God cheat on his sealed wive(s) in heaven and sleep with another God's wife, thus having illegitimate spirit children, some of whom have been sent to earth, never to be disciplined? The whole point of the p***age is that "God is treating you as sons" (v. 7), i.e. by discipline. The language is that of metaphor. If not, Mormons should be consistent and admit God the Father had an affair and that he had spirit children out of wedlock.

Russ

02-13-2010, 07:08 PM

nrajeff

02-13-2010, 07:33 PM

Hebrews 12:9? I'll paste what I wrote yesterday elsewhere:

---Aaron, I am happy to accept the context you put v. 9 into.
My post was a response to Andy's almost-incoherent "Genesis does not say that God begot us." I wasn't really being serious--it's usually not necessary or even advisable when dealing with Andy's ramblings.

akaSeerone

02-13-2010, 07:37 PM

---Aaron, I am happy to accept the context you put v. 9 into.
My post was a response to Andy's almost-incoherent "Genesis does not say that God begot us." I wasn't really being serious--it's usually not necessary or even advisable when dealing with Andy's ramblings.
There you go lying again.

Where in Genesis does it say that God begot us?

You should be suspended until you get your much needed at***ude adjustment.

Andy

nrajeff

02-13-2010, 09:25 PM

There you go lying again.
---I wasn't lying, Andy--I really AM happy to accept the context that Aaron put v. 9 into.

Where in Genesis does it say that God begot us?
----Will you settle for Luke 3:38? Despite what you may think, Luke is part of the Bible too:
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

You should be suspended until you get your much needed at***ude adjustment.
----Um, you calling me a liar in multiple posts might be a more urgent cry for "suspend me!" than anything I have posted....what's the deal with YOUR at***ude? Are you ever happy? About ANYTHING?

Billyray

02-14-2010, 03:44 PM

Actually we ARE created BY God in the beginning--as he says--in his image and likeness.

Here is the LDS progression

Intelligence----->spirit child----->physical being------>exalted being

How did the LDS god create us according to LDS theology?

nrajeff

02-14-2010, 03:51 PM

How did the LDS god create us according to LDS theology?
----How did da Vinci create the Mona Lisa?

Billyray

02-14-2010, 03:54 PM

----How did da Vinci create the Mona Lisa?

According to LDS thought we co-existed with God. If this is true then did God really create us?

Billyray

02-14-2010, 07:05 PM

Is God unable to create in kind?

Can the LDS god create in kind?

Can the LDS god create intelligences?

Recall
Intelligences----->spirit child----->human----->resurrected being/exaltation

aaronshaf

02-14-2010, 08:11 PM

Exactly. The Mormon God can only "beget" spirit bodies for existing beings already of the same kind, or "create" (not beget) immortal bodies of flesh and bone such as for Adam and Eve.

But not actual persons or beings in his own kind.

The event of creating Adam and Eve's bodies of flesh and bone was apparently a more direct action, but not of begetting. Whether or not a Mormon takes the created-from-dust narrative more straightforwardly, Heavenly Mother presumably didn't p*** Adam and Eve through her exalted womb two times, once for a spirit body, and again for a body of flesh and bones. The first process was that of begetting, and the second was seemingly not.

Indeed, with the latter there doesn't even seem to have been required a Heavenly Mother.

This has really interesting implications for Mormons who use Luke 3:38 to prove that Adam has his lineage in a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.

Indeed, we have to ask in response to the Mormon usage of this p***age: Is Heavenly Father alone (without Heavenly Mother) the parent of Adam's body of flesh and bones? Do the garden-bodies of Adam and Eve only have one parent?

What implication in Mormonism does this have for our bodies (of flesh and bone) and how they have been said to be in the image of Heavenly Father? If Heavenly Mother wasn't even involved in the creation or begetting of such bodies, then what does this mean for the bodies of women?

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-14-2010, 10:37 PM

Can the LDS god create in kind?

Can the LDS god create intelligences?

Recall
Intelligences----->spirit child----->human----->resurrected being/exaltation

If by "create" you mean "beget", then yes.

Look at the pattern here on earth:
Birth/Infant--->toddler--->rebellious teenager--->college grad--->grown adult--->husband/father--->etc.

There is a progression here. I did not bear a college grad or rich doctor, but the potential for transformation is there.

aaronshaf

02-14-2010, 10:41 PM

FBT, what do you mean? It seems rather that the Mormon God begets spirit bodies for intelligences, not begets intelligences into being.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-14-2010, 10:45 PM

FBT, what do you mean? It seems rather that the Mormon God begets spirit bodies for intelligences, not begets intelligences into being.
Right, our being cannot be created.

He creates our bodies to house our being so that we can progress.
Progress where?
To where and what He is through obedience to gospel principles and ordinances.

I use the word "beget" to indicate that God facilitates a path to become what He is.

Billyray

02-14-2010, 11:07 PM

Right, our being cannot be created.

He creates our bodies to house our being so that we can progress.
Progress where?
To where and what He is through obedience to gospel principles and ordinances.

I use the word "beget" to indicate that God facilitates a path to become what He is.

So you would agree that God is incapable of creating our intelligence?

And that we co-existed with god from eternity past?

Joshua.Thomas

02-15-2010, 05:50 AM

nrajeff

02-15-2010, 06:03 AM

Exactly. The Mormon God can only "beget" spirit bodies for existing beings already of the same kind, or "create" (not beget) immortal bodies of flesh and bone such as for Adam and Eve.
But not actual persons or beings in his own kind.

---Well, that should make you happy, Aaron--according to you, the LDS have the "orthodox" doctrine that God is unable to procreate. So you'll kindly tell all your Cram buddies to stop ridiculing us and claiming that our doctrine is that God CAN procreate....right?

Billyray

02-15-2010, 07:46 AM

---Well, that should make you happy, Aaron--according to you, the LDS have the "orthodox" doctrine that God is unable to procreate. So you'll kindly tell all your Cram buddies to stop ridiculing us and claiming that our doctrine is that God CAN procreate....right?

Jeff, please help us understand LDS theology.

Intelligence (uncreated by god and co-existent with god)----->spiritual baby

How do you take this uncreated intelligence that co-exists with God and make a spiritual baby? Does God the Father make a spiritual body and then place the intelligence into that spiritual body without the help of Heavenly Mother? Or does God the Father incorporate this intelligence material into himself and then p*** this material to Heavenly mother in a similar way that we procreate here on this earth?

nrajeff

02-15-2010, 08:40 AM

Jeff, please help us understand LDS theology.

--I am happy to try. Start by reading what our scriptures and official website say about it.

How do you take this uncreated intelligence that co-exists with God and make a spiritual baby?
---How did your mom and dad take whatever it was they took, and make YOU? Whatever they did involved substance that already existed, right? (DNA, for example) What prevents God from taking some existing substance or essence, and making your SPIRIT from it? I see no law preventing Him from doing that.

Does God the Father make a spiritual body and then place the intelligence into that spiritual body without the help of Heavenly Mother?
--we don't know because the info hasn't been given to us.

Or does God the Father incorporate this intelligence material into himself and then p*** this material to Heavenly mother in a similar way that we procreate here on this earth?
----We don't know because the info hasn't been given to us, but your hypothesis isn't totally nonsensical so I'd include it in the list of many possible explanations. Theology answers "WHY" questions more than it does "HOW" questions.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-15-2010, 11:43 AM

This process of acquiring a testimony is essential to one’s membership in the Mormon Church. Mormons believe each member has the privilege to know personally what is true. The Spirit of the Lord will testify to individuals, so that they can feel a conviction of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Hi Josh.

Thanks for your good input here. What you said is spot on. The Holy Ghost is a second witness--a confirming witness--of what we have come to know is true through study, and pondering the word of God.

This is the essence of a Testimony.

Billyray

02-15-2010, 01:04 PM

Hi Josh.

Thanks for your good input here. What you said is spot on. The Holy Ghost is a second witness--a confirming witness--of what we have come to know is true through study, and pondering the word of God.

This is the essence of a Testimony.
But I have a testimony about truth that conflicts with your testimony. Can both of us have a witness from God about conflicting data?

nrajeff

02-16-2010, 12:30 AM

But I have a testimony about truth that conflicts with your testimony. Can both of us have a witness from God about conflicting data?

---Can Moses have a witness from God that it's okay to hit back, yet Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have a witness from God that it's NOT okay to hit back?

aaronshaf

02-16-2010, 01:33 AM

I use the word "beget" to indicate that God facilitates a path to become what He is.

With that definition, when God gave us the Law, he was begetting us, and when he gives us food, he is begetting us, and when he speaks through prophets, he is begetting us, etc.

The definition is too broad. If anything that facilitates our path to deification in Mormonism is "begetting", just about everything in the plan of salvation is "begetting". It's as though God is begetting us in a begetting-process for thousands of years.

It sounds too ad hoc of an overly broad definition, see what I mean?

Billyray

02-16-2010, 07:34 AM

---Can Moses have a witness from God that it's okay to hit back, yet Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have a witness from God that it's NOT okay to hit back?

Jeff, you are comparing apples to oranges. The old covenant is completely different than the new covenant. LDS say that they are a restoration of the NT church not a revision of the NT church. If you said that the LDS church is a revision of the NT church then yes I could agree with your ****ogy, but that is not what the LDS claims.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-16-2010, 09:32 AM

With that definition, when God gave us the Law, he was begetting us, and when he gives us food, he is begetting us, and when he speaks through prophets, he is begetting us, etc.

The definition is too broad. If anything that facilitates our path to deification in Mormonism is "begetting", just about everything in the plan of salvation is "begetting". It's as though God is begetting us in a begetting-process for thousands of years.

It sounds too ad hoc of an overly broad definition, see what I mean?

Not I don't see what you are talking about.

For this is my work and my glory to bring to p*** the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1:39)

All God does for us is for the purpose of facilitating our becoming like He is and is part of the process.

Mirriam Webster has this:

Main Entry: be·get
Pronunciation: \bi-ˈget, bē-\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): be·got \-ˈgät\ also be·gat \-ˈgat\; be·got·ten \-ˈgä-tən\ or be·got; be·get·ting
Etymology: Middle English begeten, alteration of beyeten, from Old English bigietan — more at get
Date: 13th century

1 : to procreate as the father : sire
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth

Noah Webster says this:

1. (v. t.) To procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; to produce; as, poverty can beget crime.

2. (v. t.) To get (with child.)

3. (v. t.) To produce as an effect; to cause to exist.

nrajeff

02-16-2010, 10:01 AM

Jeff, you are comparing apples to oranges.
---Yes, in a way, probably, but look: You said

"But I have a testimony about truth that conflicts with your testimony. Can both of us have a witness from God about conflicting data?"

To Moses and the other ancient Israelites, if someone had shown up saying "No, God REALLY wants you to turn the other cheek, to go the extra mile, etc." that person would have been executed for being a false prophet. Maybe what YOU think God is telling you, and what the LDS think God is telling them, is a similar situation, where from each side's POV the other is false but it's just because of different perspectives. Or maybe you're just deceived--I guess that's a possibility, too. :)

The old covenant is completely different than the new covenant.
---You should tell that to your friends who keep prooftexting the Old Covenant's test of a prophet to use against the LDS.

akaSeerone

02-16-2010, 11:48 AM

---You should tell that to your friends who keep prooftexting the Old Covenant's test of a prophet to use against the LDS.
That is just another cop out.

You are still comparing apples to oranges and your reply was meaningless or even less than that!

Old Covenant or New Covenant....Smith was no Prophet of God.....prophet of Satan yes, and a self proclaimed profit, but no way a Prophet of God and the Bible bears that out.

You mopologists don't think for yourselves and are stuck in a state of denial.

Andy

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-16-2010, 01:25 PM

nrajeff

02-16-2010, 02:19 PM

You are still comparing apples to oranges and your reply was meaningless or even less than that!

---Well, if it was meaningless then it probably made perfect sense to you, right? :D

Billyray

02-16-2010, 03:06 PM

To Moses and the other ancient Israelites, if someone had shown up saying "No, God REALLY wants you to turn the other cheek, to go the extra mile, etc." that person would have been executed for being a false prophet. Maybe what YOU think God is telling you, and what the LDS think God is telling them, is a similar situation, where from each side's POV the other is false but it's just because of different perspectives. Or maybe you're just deceived--I guess that's a possibility, too.

Someone did show up, his name was Christ, who set up his church. What you are saying is that you agree with me that the LDS church teaches a different gospel than was set up just after the death of Christ.

akaSeerone

02-16-2010, 03:15 PM

---Well, if it was meaningless then it probably made perfect sense to you, right? :D
Your twistology is very telling.

Andy

stemelbow

02-17-2010, 08:20 AM

You didn't address my specific questions again, James. Please try again.

love,
stem

nrajeff

02-17-2010, 11:03 AM

Someone did show up, his name was Christ, who set up his church.

---What I said was that if someone had visited MOSES, and told HIM "No, God REALLY wants you to turn the other cheek, to go the extra mile, etc." then that person would have been executed for being a false prophet. Because Moses believed that God had told HIM the opposite: That God was COOL with His chosen people hating their enemies, retaliating, and only going the first mile.
So anyone suggesting that what Moses had been told from God was WRONG, would have been considered a blasphemer. Which supports my point that two people can get contradictory messages from God.

What you are saying is that you agree with me that the LDS church teaches a different gospel than was set up just after the death of Christ

---I don't see where I agreed with THAT. The LDS teach the same gospel that Jesus and His apostles taught, which includes the idea God wants people to love both friends AND enemies, to go the extra mile, etc.

Billyray

02-17-2010, 11:31 AM

---What I said was that if someone had visited MOSES, and told HIM "No, God REALLY wants you to turn the other cheek, to go the extra mile, etc." then that person would have been executed for being a false prophet.
That is correct if someone had visited Moses and told him ""No, God REALLY wants you to turn the other cheek. . ." that person would of been a false prophet and that person likely would of been stoned because they were under the old covenant and God did not reveal that new covenant during the time of Moses.

Likewise the new covenant was given to us by Christ and written down for us by his apostles and if someone comes along and gives us a "new gospel" than that which was given we should be consider that person as a false prophet.

The LDS teach the same gospel that Jesus and His apostles taught, which includes the idea God wants people to love both friends AND enemies, to go the extra mile, etc.

LDS can take two positions

1. That the LDS gospel is a restoration of the original NT church.

2. That the LDS gospel is a revision or new gospel because of the direction of modern day apostles and prophets.

From your statement above I presume that you take position number 1, which means that the LDS is an exact replica or restoration of the original. I could not disagree with you more because the LDS church and its gospel is NOT a replica of the original NT church as described in the Bible. However if you say that the LDS church is a revision or changed gospel because of changes that your prophets have made, then I can agree with this position.

Father_JD

02-17-2010, 12:50 PM

You weren't paying attention, jeff.

YES, some of God's attributes ARE "communicable" and He HAS endowed us with those which are possible to receive.

God is ontologically UNCREATE. By virtue of our CREATION, we could NEVER share his "eternality". Created beings can NOT become "UNCREATE".

Get it? Finally?

JS had to radically re-define God's nature to come up with the absurd notion that human beings can become literally deity.

Father_JD

02-17-2010, 12:52 PM

How can a 2D object understand the 3rd Dimension?

MacG

Exactly! Thanks, MacG. :)

MacG

02-17-2010, 01:37 PM

Exactly! Thanks, MacG. :)

And conversly, the 3rd dimension is omnipresent in relation to the 2nd as it permeates the 2nd dimension and any other 2d plane rotated about the x,y and z axis.

MacG

nrajeff

02-17-2010, 01:45 PM

... the LDS church and its gospel is NOT a replica of the original NT church as described in the Bible.
-----I have yet to see ANY church today that IS an exact REPLICA of the original. Can YOU name one? Also, I have yet to see a churcht currently in existence that comes CLOSER to that original church than the LDS church does. If you know of one that DOES, please name it for me.

However if you say that the LDS church is a revision or changed gospel because of changes that your prophets have made, then I can agree with this position.
---The LDS church IS different from the original in many ways, such as: the original one didn't use computerized databases for membership records. Etc. Is that bad of us to be different in areas like that?

Billyray

02-17-2010, 03:16 PM

----- I have yet to see a churcht currently in existence that comes CLOSER to that original church than the LDS church does

Jeff, do you really believe this?

The LDS church and its doctrine are completely different than that in the NT church set up by Christ and his followers. Biblical Christianity and Mormonism are almost 180 degrees apart, I am not sure how you came to your ***essment above. Maybe you could further expound on your ideas for us.

akaSeerone

02-17-2010, 03:39 PM

-----I have yet to see ANY church today that IS an exact REPLICA of the original. Can YOU name one? Also, I have yet to see a churcht currently in existence that comes CLOSER to that original church than the LDS church does. If you know of one that DOES, please name it for me.

---The LDS church IS different from the original in many ways, such as: the original one didn't use computerized databases for membership records. Etc. Is that bad of us to be different in areas like that?
Jeff....the lds "church" is no Church in the Biblical sense....it is only an organization playing church and God does not play games.....that makes the lds organization anti-Church/anti-Christian.

Your post is nothing more than lds propaganda and adds nothing to this forum worth considering.

If you are going to make such bold statements you have to back them up....we are not going to take your say-so for it.

The New Testament Church did not teach:

That God is an exalted man that became God,

That Jesus and Satan are brothers,

That works are required for salvation,

That God was using Prophets like He did under the Old Covenant.....

So, no, the lds organization has nothing in common with the New Testament Church.

Andy

Billyray

02-17-2010, 05:50 PM

All of God's creations (speaking of living creations) are a testimony of life producing life after its kind. That life begets life, in kind.

Fig, the problem with your theory is that the LDS god does not "create" life after its kind. Was that an oversight by you?

Radix

02-17-2010, 06:01 PM

This has probably already been brought up. God is self existent. Anything he creates cannot be self existent, as it would depend on God for its existence. There are some things that are indeed intrinsically impossible. Even in the spiritual realm.

nrajeff

02-18-2010, 08:13 AM

Jeff, do you really believe this?
---Yes, because I try to think logically, therefore if I knew of some OTHER church that came closer to the original, I would be looking to join IT. The fact that I remain happily LDS is a sign that I don't see anything closer out there in the world of "traditional" Christianity.

The LDS church and its doctrine are completely different than that in the NT church set up by Christ and his followers. Biblical Christianity and Mormonism are almost 180 degrees apart, I am not sure how you came to your ***essment above. Maybe you could further expound on your ideas for us.
---Sure, no prob. Item #1: The original church was set up to have, as its human leadership, 12 apostles running it, setting policy and deciding matters of doctrine for the ENTIRE body of disciples. Find me a church out there in "traditional land" that has that setup today. You can't, because all of you abandoned that pattern long ago and now preach that Jesus doesn't WANT His church run that way anymore.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-18-2010, 09:26 AM

Fig, the problem with your theory is that the LDS god does not "create" life after its kind. Was that an oversight by you?

You've missed a lot of the discussion. Nor did you seem to understand my actual post.

Life begets in kind. That's the pattern of all living things.
We believe God begets in kind. For you, this is beyond God's ability to do.

nrajeff

02-18-2010, 10:43 AM

You've missed a lot of the discussion. Nor did you seem to understand my actual post.

Life begets in kind. That's the pattern of all living things.
We believe God begets in kind. For you, this is beyond God's ability to do.

---And it's really a fascinating discussion, IMO. As far as I can see, there can be only 3 sides in this debate:

1. Those who think that God lacks the ability to create beings with the potential to become like Himself.

2. Those who think that God HAS the ability and chooses to use it.

3. Those who think that God has the ability to create beings with the potential to become like Himself, but God thinks that doing so would be evil, so He chooses to NOT create any such beings, ever.

So we are finding out, via this discussion, which of those 3 categories we are in.

akaSeerone

02-18-2010, 11:22 AM

---And it's really a fascinating discussion, IMO. As far as I can see, there can be only 3 sides in this debate:

1. Those who think that God lacks the ability to create beings with the potential to become like Himself.

2. Those who think that God HAS the ability and chooses to use it.

3. Those who think that God has the ability to create beings with the potential to become like Himself, but God thinks that doing so would be evil, so He chooses to NOT create any such beings, ever.

So we are finding out, via this discussion, which of those 3 categories we are in.
And you don't have one iota of Scripture to back up your man made, flesh driven anti-Scriptural nonsense.

Andy

akaSeerone

02-18-2010, 11:25 AM

You've missed a lot of the discussion. Nor did you seem to understand my actual post.

Life begets in kind. That's the pattern of all living things.
We believe God begets in kind. For you, this is beyond God's ability to do.
God creates, not begets.

But of course you mormons don't believe a thing that the Bible says and you twist every thing in it to hopelessly try to fit the anti-Biblical mormon doctrine.

Andy

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-18-2010, 12:01 PM

God creates, not begets.

But of course you mormons don't believe a thing that the Bible says and you twist every thing in it to hopelessly try to fit the anti-Biblical mormon doctrine.

Andy

John 3:16, 18

Of all scriptures to throw under the bus, Andy, I thought this one would have at least come to mind for you. But it didn't.

Ps. 2:7

John 1:18

Acts 13:33

1 Jn. 4:9

Heb. 5:5

nrajeff

02-18-2010, 01:54 PM

And you don't have one iota of Scripture to back up your man made, flesh driven anti-Scriptural nonsense.
Andy

---Which of those 3 choices do YOU subscribe to, Andy? Instead of just attacking, mocking, and accusing, how about telling us YOUR beliefs for a change? Or are you unable to do that?

1. Those who think that God lacks the ability to create beings with the potential to become like Himself.

2. Those who think that God HAS the ability and chooses to use it.

3. Those who think that God has the ability to create beings with the potential to become like Himself, but God thinks that doing so would be evil, so He chooses to NOT create any such beings, ever.

akaSeerone

02-18-2010, 03:18 PM

---Which of those 3 choices do YOU subscribe to, Andy? Instead of just attacking, mocking, and accusing, how about telling us YOUR beliefs for a change? Or are you unable to do that?

1. Those who think that God lacks the ability to create beings with the potential to become like Himself.

2. Those who think that God HAS the ability and chooses to use it.

3. Those who think that God has the ability to create beings with the potential to become like Himself, but God thinks that doing so would be evil, so He chooses to NOT create any such beings, ever.
Why do you have to be reminded that we Christians are not here to defend Christianity....it is a given on this forum that we Christians have the TRUTH and you are here to hopelessly try to defend your anti-Christian cult?

Andy

nrajeff

02-18-2010, 04:43 PM

it is a given on this forum that we Christians have the TRUTH and you are here to hopelessly try to defend your anti-Christian cult?
---LOL. Maybe that's a huge part of your problem: You are under the delusion that it's a given that anything you say is correct. Shrinks call that a God Complex, I think. Or at least a horrid case of arrogance and snobbery, to the point of being out of touch with reality.

akaSeerone

02-18-2010, 04:54 PM

---LOL. Maybe that's a huge part of your problem: You are under the delusion that it's a given that anything you say is correct. Shrinks call that a God Complex, I think. Or at least a horrid case of arrogance and snobbery, to the point of being out of touch with reality.And yet mormonism has thousands of so called "elders" going about doing exactly what you are accusing me of and in fact Smith founded his anti-Christian cult doing that exact thing also.

Besides....mormonism has been soundly refuted here time after time here and this forum was founded by someone that reached out in love to try and wake mormons up to the errors of mormonism and yet you guys mock, deny and just plain refuse to listen to sound Biblical exegesis and then accuse us of all kinds of atrocities just to try and steer any and all sound Biblical exegesis away so your cult won't be exposed for the lie that it is.

Alas....you are only fooling yourselves.

Andy

nrajeff

02-18-2010, 05:12 PM

And yet mormonism has thousands of so called "elders" going about doing exactly what you are accusing me of and in fact Smith founded his anti-Christian cult doing that exact thing also.

What--you really have evidence that all those missionaries, and Joseph Smith, claimed it as a given that anything they say is correct? I can find you a quote of Smith admitting that he could be wrong--and that he WAS wrong--about some things. Looks like you lied again.

akaSeerone

02-18-2010, 05:27 PM

What--you really have evidence that all those missionaries, and Joseph Smith, claimed it as a given that anything they say is correct? I can find you a quote of Smith admitting that he could be wrong--and that he WAS wrong--about some things. Looks like you lied again.
What kind of wish-washy nonsense.

We Christians are ***ured.

We Christians don't if and or but or make things up as we go.

We Christians don't have to figure out if what the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets is true.....they have given us the Standard for all things pertaining to life and Godliness that is more sure than hearing the voice of God Himself as Peter taught us in 2 Peter 1.

Mormonism has nothing.

Andy

Mark Beesley

02-18-2010, 05:30 PM

Why do you have to be reminded that we Christians are not here to defend Christianity....it is a given on this forum that we Christians have the TRUTH and you are here to hopelessly try to defend your anti-Christian cult?

Andy
I think any LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians that are on this Board, and specifically in this forum would be glad to defend their beliefs. That, of course, begs the question of why you are here.

As I understand it, this forum is here to discuss Mormonism. It is naiive to suppose that one can discuss Mormonism in a vacuum. It is meaningless and impotent to claim that Mormonism is false without providing a comparison.

Perhaps a simple example. Suppose Christopher Columbus had a cousin named Barney who believed the earth was flat. Try to imagine the dialogue between the two of them if Christopher was unwilling to discuss the true shape of the world.

Barney: The world is flat.

Christopher: No. It isn't.

Barney: Sure it is. Look out at the horizon. It's flat, flat, flat for as far as you can see.

Christopher: You lie.

Barney: Do you know anyone who has proved the world isn't flat.

Christopher: You are so deluded, it is sad.

Barney: Everyone I know thinks the same, that the world is all flat

Christopher: You're all wrong. You're just too stoopid to know it.

Barney: So, if it isn't flat, what shape is it?

Christopher: How can you be so dense? Don't you have a picture of the world?

Barney: Yeah, it's printed on a piece of paper, and it's flat.

So, if you want to tell me Mormonism is false, you better be prepared to explain relative to what! Otherwise, save your keystrokes for your . . . oh, never mind.

akaSeerone

02-18-2010, 06:32 PM

You start your post out being deceitful and you expect us Christians to believe anything you say....mormonism has totally twisted and redefined the Bible and then have the gall to call themselves Christian.

You have to correct that if you expect to have a honest debate.

You are not Christian.

Andy

Billyray

02-18-2010, 08:32 PM

You've missed a lot of the discussion. Nor did you seem to understand my actual post.

Life begets in kind. That's the pattern of all living things.
We believe God begets in kind. For you, this is beyond God's ability to do.
But God does not beget in kind according to LDS thought because your essence or intelligence is co-existent with God and God can't create or beget this intelligence or essence.

Billyray

02-18-2010, 08:38 PM

------Yes, because I try to think logically, therefore if I knew of some OTHER church that came closer to the original, I would be looking to join IT. The fact that I remain happily LDS is a sign that I don't see anything closer out there in the world of "traditional" Christianity..

Every mainstream Christian church is closer in doctrine to the original NT church than the LDS church, so it would not be hard to find a church to join, just look in your phonebook.

The original church was set up to have, as its human leadership, 12 apostles running it,

There is no question that Christ called 12 apostles to be his witness, to set up his church, and several who went on to write down scripture about His life, miracles, death, and resurrection. But what makes you think that there was suppose to be a continuos succession of 12 apostles eternally?

nrajeff

02-18-2010, 09:01 PM

Every mainstream Christian church is closer in doctrine to the original NT church than the LDS church
---Then list the doctrines that the original church (apostolic era) taught and practiced. Then rank the Catholic, Orthodox, and the myriad of Reformationist churches in order, with number 1 being the church that does things closest to the original. That would be helpful to people who want to join the church that's closest to the original.

There is no question that Christ called 12 apostles to be his witness, to set up his church, and several who went on to write down scripture about His life, miracles, death, and resurrection.
--You forgot "....and to oversee the bishops, make rulings when disputes arose, decide true and false doctrine, and ordain leaders including their own successors."

But what makes you think that there was suppose to be a continuos succession of 12 apostles eternally?
---Not eternally: Paul said that Jesus ins***uted the office of apostle, et al, to be in the church "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." (Eph. 4) Once all of Christianity arrives at that utopian state of spiritual maturity and unity, the need for apostles will probably fade away. Answer me this: Since you guys did away with apostolic-level leadership, has Christendom become MORE united? Or LESS united and more fragmented?

Billyray

02-19-2010, 12:32 AM

---Then list the doctrines that the original church (apostolic era) taught and practiced. Then rank the Catholic, Orthodox, and the myriad of Reformationist churches in order, with number 1 being the church that does things closest to the original. That would be helpful to people who want to join the church that's closest to the original.

I think that the two most important issues are: 1. The nature of God; 2. Salvation

1. Nature of God. I rank this number one because we know that we should not worship a false god. What makes a god false? False ideas about god. The LDS god and the Christian God are completely different. Using logic either the LDS god is true, or the Christian God is true, but both gods can be true because of their conflicting constructs (or a third possibility is that neither is true). The true God is God from everlasting to everlasting, this point alone rules out the LDS god as being the only true god. God was never a man and there are not many gods--addition points that affirm the false idea about the LDS god. Look at all mainstream Christian churches and you will find that they all affirm this concept and thus are worshipping the only true God.

2. Salvation--this is the second most important issue behind the nature of God. Again the LDS concept and the Biblical concept are at complete odds with each other. LDS teaches exaltation is by works in addition to grace and faith. The Bible teaches us that we are not saved by our works. These are completely opposing ideas.

Billyray

02-19-2010, 12:40 AM

------Not eternally: Paul said that Jesus ins***uted the office of apostle, et al, to be in the church "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." (Eph. 4) Once all of Christianity arrives at that utopian state of spiritual maturity and unity, the need for apostles will probably fade away. Answer me this: Since you guys did away with apostolic-level leadership, has Christendom become MORE united? Or LESS united and more fragmented?

There is no indication that the 12 apostles were to persist in the church after the death of the original 12 apostles died (recall that Judas was never considered a true believer which is why his position was replaced by Matthias to complete the 12th). The apostles were a foundation along with Christ, and we know that a building has only one foundation not foundation over foundation over foundation. . . Also in Revelation, the wall of the city will have foundation stones with the 12 apostles. If there are apostles throughout history (or even from 1830 to present as you ***ume) which 12 apostles were spoken about because there would of been hundreds to choose from.

Rev 21:14 "The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of THE twelve apostles of the Lamb." NIV

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-19-2010, 08:43 AM

There is no indication that the 12 apostles were to persist in the church after the death of the original 12 apostles died (recall that Judas was never considered a true believer which is why his position was replaced by Matthias to complete the 12th). The apostles were a foundation along with Christ, and we know that a building has only one foundation not foundation over foundation over foundation. . . Also in Revelation, the wall of the city will have foundation stones with the 12 apostles. If there are apostles throughout history (or even from 1830 to present as you ***ume) which 12 apostles were spoken about because there would of been hundreds to choose from.

Rev 21:14 "The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of THE twelve apostles of the Lamb." NIV
You remove the foundation, and the building collapses.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-19-2010, 08:44 AM

Billyray

02-19-2010, 09:09 AM

You remove the foundation, and the building collapses.

Fig, the foundation has ALREADY been set and consists of THE apostles with Jesus being the "chief corner stone".

Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Notice in verse 14 below it speaks about the wall of the city will have twelve foundations for THE TWELVE APOSTLES of the Lamb. This clearly is speaking about Christ's original 12 apostles. If there were to be a continuos line of apostles throughout ages this verse would not make sense OR at the minimum be unclear about which 12 it was speaking about.

Revelation 21
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

nrajeff

02-19-2010, 01:47 PM

Fig, the foundation has ALREADY been set and consists of THE apostles with Jesus being the "chief corner stone".

---What are those original 12 apostles doing for Christians these days? Have they written any epistle updates to address the problems of OUR century? Seems like those apostles are nowhere to be found outside the LDS church, which continues to have that foundation where the rest of Christendom has abandoned it. Face it, you got no foundation anymore. You haven't had one since the 2nd century. And look at the mess that Christendom is in as a result. Paul is probably sitting up in heaven saying "I TOLD you that Jesus gave apostles to help the work of the ministry and edify the saints until they all come to unity of faith and a degree of perfection comparable to the stature of Christ! You should have listened to me! At the rate you're going, you're NEVER gonna reach that level I mentioned in my epistle to the Ephesians! "

By the way, the topic of this thread is whether or not God is able to create anyone like Himself.

Billyray

02-19-2010, 01:55 PM

---What are those original 12 apostles doing for Christians these days? Have they written any epistle updates to address the problems of OUR century? Seems like those apostles are nowhere to be found outside the LDS church, which continues to have that foundation . . .

So is this an admission by you that the LDS church has changed the basic teachings of the NT church (i.e. created a new foundation than that which was already laid down)?

BTW what are the 5 most important revelations that YOUR leaders have given us in the last 100 years?

nrajeff

02-19-2010, 02:12 PM

So is this an admission by you that the LDS church has changed the basic teachings of the NT church (i.e. created a new foundation than that which was already laid down)?
---Of course not. You guys allowed the foundation to be missing for 1600 years, and Jesus rebuilt it in the 1800s. That's not a change of basic teaching--it's a RE-AFFIRMATION of one. I can't help it that the original church was run by apostles, and today only the LDS church has that same setup that the original one had. If YOUR church has DONE AWAY with that setup, it seems like it's YOUR church that changed it, and has some explaining to do as to why it differs so much from the original.

BTW what are the 5 most important revelations that YOUR leaders have given us in the last 100 years?
---I haven't ranked them in importance before, just like I haven't done that to Jesus' revelations to the original church. I would have to do some thinking before I made a judgment as to what the most important ones were. But ANY important revelation from an apostle of Jesus is better than NOTHING, which is what a church that LACKS apostles is gonna get.

Billyray

02-19-2010, 02:18 PM

You guys allowed the foundation to be missing for 1600 years, and Jesus rebuilt it in the 1800s.

A "REBUILT" foundation. OK, you admitted it. The LDS church is built upon a new foundation. Thanks for at least admitting it.

Billyray

02-19-2010, 02:26 PM

------I haven't ranked them (5 most important revelations by the LDS in the last 100 years) in importance before, just like I haven't done that to Jesus' revelations to the original church.

Can I help you out?

The most important LDS revelations in the last 100 years or so.

1. Allowing blacks to hold the priesthood in 1978
2. Changing the temple ceremony in 1990 taking out the death oaths
3. The Manifesto banning polygamy in 1890
4. Spencer W Kimball disavowing the Adam God theory in the Oct 1976 General Conference.

nrajeff

02-19-2010, 07:46 PM

A "REBUILT" foundation. OK, you admitted it. The LDS church is built upon a new foundation. Thanks for at least admitting it.

---Um, no. It's STILL a foundation of apostles and prophets, with Jesus as its chief cornerstone. See, if you build a house on a foundation of stones, and one stone goes missing, you should REPLACE that stone so that you still HAVE a foundation. If you let all the stones in the foundation go missing, you have a foundation-less house. Which is the current state of YOUR church. Which, I guess, we can say that YOU have admitted. :D

nrajeff

02-19-2010, 07:48 PM

Can I help you out?
--No. If I wanted someone to tell me what MY top 5 picks are, I would have asked.

Billyray

02-19-2010, 07:51 PM

---Um, no. It's STILL a foundation of apostles and prophets, with Jesus as its chief cornerstone. See, if you build a house on a foundation of stones, and one stone goes missing, you should REPLACE that stone so that you still HAVE a foundation. If you let all the stones in the foundation go missing, you have a foundation-less house. Which is the current state of YOUR church. Which, I guess, we can say that YOU have admitted. :D
I guess that is where we differ. I believe in THE foundation of the 12 apostles and Christ as the chief cornerstone, not multiple foundations or multiple revisions of the foundation. In your position the building can never really be built because you are continually monkeying around with the foundation.

akaSeerone

02-19-2010, 07:57 PM

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-19-2010, 08:17 PM

Fig, the foundation has ALREADY been set and consists of THE apostles with Jesus being the "chief corner stone".

Ephesians 2:20 "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Notice in verse 14 below it speaks about the wall of the city will have twelve foundations for THE TWELVE APOSTLES of the Lamb. This clearly is speaking about Christ's original 12 apostles. If there were to be a continuos line of apostles throughout ages this verse would not make sense OR at the minimum be unclear about which 12 it was speaking about.

Revelation 21
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Still, if you remove a foundation, the building collapses. Show me in the bible that the foundation exists in the absence of Apostles and prophets.

Billyray

02-19-2010, 08:20 PM

Still, if you remove a foundation, the building collapses.

Who is removing (or continually revising) THE foundation--Mormons or Christians?

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-19-2010, 08:20 PM

But God does not beget in kind according to LDS thought because your essence or intelligence is co-existent with God and God can't create or beget this intelligence or essence.

God begets in kind much like we do. You would be the first to acknowledge that dogs do not beget in kind by your over-the-top definition, because they don't actually create the spirit that gives the dog carc*** life. God does.

God doesn't beget our intelligence, but he begets a spirit body for it to inhabit.

Billyray

02-19-2010, 08:26 PM

God begets in kind much like we do. You would be the first to acknowledge that dogs do not beget in kind by your over-the-top definition, because they don't actually create the spirit that gives the dog carc*** life. God does.

God doesn't beget our intelligence, but he begets a spirit body for it to inhabit.

So do you believe that God created an "animal intelligence" (which the LDS god is incapable to create the human intelligence)or do you believe that the animal intelligence is self existent similar to the human intelligence?

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-19-2010, 08:34 PM

So do you believe that God created an "animal intelligence" (which the LDS god is incapable to create the human intelligence)or do you believe that the animal intelligence is self existent similar to the human intelligence?

I believe all intelligences are self-existent.

Billyray

02-19-2010, 08:36 PM

I believe all intelligences are self-existent.

Where do these eternal animals go after they die? Do they go to different kingdoms based on their mortal works?

akaSeerone

02-19-2010, 08:41 PM

I believe all intelligences are self-existent.
That makes no sense whatsoever.

If we were self existent we would not need God, and we would in fact be gods.....and there is only THE God.....always has been and always will be THE ONLY GOD.

Sorry fig but you have no idea what you are talking about.

But we all know that.

Andy

nrajeff

02-19-2010, 10:27 PM

That makes no sense whatsoever.

If we were self existent we would not need God, and we would in fact be gods

---Andy, this may be hard for you to grasp because it's probably at a 3rd-grade level, but what if a type of self-existent germ was discovered out in space? Just because it was self-existent, doesn't make it omnipotent or omniscient or omnivorous or whatever else has been programmed into you to believe about God. It would still JUST BE A GERM, with all the abilities and mental competence of a germ---not much. To that germ, YOU, a NON-self-existent but sentient, intelligent mammal, would be like a GOD.

That's enough of a refutation, I mean lesson, for you for today.

Billyray

02-19-2010, 10:31 PM

---Just because it was self-existent, doesn't make it omnipotent or omniscient or omnivorous or whatever else has been programmed into you to believe about God. . .

How does it make you feel that your god did not really create you but rather just made a shell for you to live in?

akaSeerone

02-20-2010, 07:26 AM

---Andy, this may be hard for you to grasp because it's probably at a 3rd-grade level, but what if a type of self-existent germ was discovered out in space? Just because it was self-existent, doesn't make it omnipotent or omniscient or omnivorous or whatever else has been programmed into you to believe about God. It would still JUST BE A GERM, with all the abilities and mental competence of a germ---not much. To that germ, YOU, a NON-self-existent but sentient, intelligent mammal, would be like a GOD.

That's enough of a refutation, I mean lesson, for you for today.
More pure nonsense and meaningless post.

I have the Bible to back me up and all you have is your what ifs and you have the gall to think you have refuted me.

All you have shown everyone again is you have no idea what you are talking about and bask in your puffed up mind, making things up as you go like as if those things mean anything.

You are delusional dude if you really think anything you said has any Biblical meaning whatsoever.

Live with it or repent....if you don't you will end up in hell with you god Smith who thought he could make things up as he went and look what it got him.....much deserved early death and a guest of Satan.

Andy

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-20-2010, 07:55 AM

That makes no sense whatsoever.

If we were self existent we would not need God,

Non sequitur.

akaSeerone

02-20-2010, 08:20 AM

Non sequitur.
No it is not a non sequitur.

God is the one and only self existent being.

You have no argument because there is nothing to be refuted about God being the one and only self existent being.

Oh...then there is also the irrefutable FACT that God created EVERYTHING in existence except for Himself.

Andy

Radix

02-20-2010, 08:52 AM

nrajeff

02-20-2010, 07:29 PM

(Just because it was self-existent, doesn't make it omnipotent or omniscient or omnivorous or whatever else has been programmed into you to believe about God)

How does it make you feel that your god did not really create you but rather just made a shell for you to live in?

---You committed yet another fallacy--the false premise that if God creates spirits from something other than total nothingness, that He has not created anything at all. I think DaVinci, Rembrandt, Mozart, and Frank Lloyd Wright--not to mention God--would disagree with that logic.

Besides, even if your premise were not a false one, it is an irrelevant response to the issue of whether or not God is self-existent. It has nothing to do with it, so why did you try to use it?

P.S.-- I'll take a God who creates something good anyday, and the fact that He created it from non-nothingness doesn't make me feel bad at all, as it shouldn't. Your attempt to insult isn't gonna work on people who know better, such as myself.

nrajeff

02-20-2010, 07:33 PM

then there is also the irrefutable FACT that God created EVERYTHING in existence except for Himself.

---Really? If EVERYTHING currently in existence was created by God, then when did God create Charles Manson? Are you saying that God didn't stop creating on that sixth day of creation, thousands of years ago? You believe that God CONTINUES to create things and beings and people? When, in your always-correct opinion, will God STOP creating? When will He take a breather, call it a day, rest from His labors?

Billyray

02-20-2010, 07:46 PM

How does it make you feel that your god did not really create you but rather just made a shell for you to live in?

---You committed yet another fallacy--the false premise that if God creates spirits from something other than total nothingness, that He has not created anything at all.

Jeff, your post seems very disjointed and you seem to be quoting another poster later in your comments. Anyway to answer your first statement, you are completely false. You said that "He has not created anything at all." But if you simply read my post you will know that is not even what I ***erted. I did make note that the LDS god "made a shell for you to live in". But in all fairness your god did not really "create" this shell but a more accurate statement would be that he "organized" pre-existing material into a shell to house your pre-existing intelligence.

Besides, even if your premise were not a false one, it is an irrelevant response to the issue of whether or not God is self-existent. It has nothing to do with it, so why did you try to use it?

I am not sure what you are talking about here Jeff. I think that you may be quoting a different poster.

P.S.-- I'll take a God who creates something good anyday. . .

Even if it is a false god?

That is what people do all of the time Jeff, they make up a god in their mind , which in reality is a false god. If you feel good about following a false god then I can't stop you. But I certainly do not support your choice in good conscience.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-21-2010, 11:11 AM

No it is not a non sequitur.

God is the one and only self existent being.

You have no argument because there is nothing to be refuted about God being the one and only self existent being.

Oh...then there is also the irrefutable FACT that God created EVERYTHING in existence except for Himself.

Andy

You said:

"If we were self existent we would not need God,"

That is a non sequitur.

We could not obtain spirit bodies w/o God. We could not advance w/o God.

So, obviously, you have not clue what you are talking about, and it is best to ignore you completely.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-21-2010, 11:14 AM

Jeff, your post seems very disjointed and you seem to be quoting another poster later in your comments. Anyway to answer your first statement, you are completely false. You said that "He has not created anything at all." But if you simply read my post you will know that is not even what I ***erted. I did make note that the LDS god "made a shell for you to live in". But in all fairness your god did not really "create" this shell but a more accurate statement would be that he "organized" pre-existing material into a shell to house your pre-existing intelligence.

This "shell" is called a body. Use the scriptural term, please.

Your made up god is a hocus pocus conjuring god who makes his own rules whenever he likes, and never has to follow them if he doesn't like. So, how's that for some inflammatory rhetoric to match your own?

akaSeerone

02-21-2010, 11:46 AM

You said:

"If we were self existent we would not need God,"

That is a non sequitur.

We could not obtain spirit bodies w/o God. We could not advance w/o God.

So, obviously, you have not clue what you are talking about, and it is best to ignore you completely.
God is Spirit and he has no body.

God is self existent, so what makes you think if we were self existent (and we are not) we would need a God to create us.

Self existent beings, if there were any besides God and there isn't, by definition would not need a God to create them because they already exist.

What is this mythical "spirit body" thingy you are trying to use as some lame excuse to make yourself seem believable?

Spirit bodies....yea right....talk about a non sequitur. (Just like your screen name....another slapping God in the face non sequitur.)

Go ahead and ignore me if you want, it will not change the truth/the obvious/common sense and you will remain lost and without hope.

Andy

Billyray

02-21-2010, 11:53 AM

This "shell" is called a body. Use the scriptural term, please.

The way that I see it the LDS god did not really create anything. Your intelligence or essence was not created by god, your physical body was not created by god, and your spiritual body was not created by god but rather organized using pre-existing material.

BTW can you tell us how god took your preexisting intelligence and made a spirit body? Did he incorporate you intelligence into his sperm to impregnated your heavenly mother after which she then went on to deliver you. Or do you believe that he just created a spirit body for your preexisting intelligence without the need for a heavenly mother. If this is the case what is the role for a heavenly mother at all?

akaSeerone

02-21-2010, 12:24 PM

---Really? If EVERYTHING currently in existence was created by God, then when did God create Charles Manson? Are you saying that God didn't stop creating on that sixth day of creation, thousands of years ago? You believe that God CONTINUES to create things and beings and people? When, in your always-correct opinion, will God STOP creating? When will He take a breather, call it a day, rest from His labors?
Read and learn your Bible and quit with the childish nonsense games.

God created Adam and Eve.....all the rest of humanity came from them, so what you are saying is nonsense and no....The Bible says that God rested and is at rest from creating.

Why are you trying to make it look like I said something that I did not say?

It is making you look helpless/hopeless to rebute.....but then we all already know that.

Andy

Father_JD

02-21-2010, 04:07 PM

MacG

02-21-2010, 07:00 PM

Again this is spoken in the context of pagan gods and idols.

True. We have not God but the God of Israel. This is not saying that there are no other gods in existence. But a declaration of WHO the God of Israel is.

Not just the God of Israel:
Rev7:9After these things I looked, and behold, a great mul***ude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying, "Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever Amen."

But the God of all of the universe who created all things:

Rev:3:11"Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."

God has revealed very little about worlds and heavens beyond what pertains to us directly. It is no wonder that so many people think that what lives upon this world is the extent of humanity throughout all of existence.

Why do you suppose? When this one God with whom we have to deal says that there will be no Gods made either before Him or after Him it is best to believe Him. It is the same God that created Adam before there was an Israel and the same God of the mul***ude above - the Bible is truth for all.

Blessings,

MacG

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-21-2010, 07:46 PM

Not just the God of Israel:
Rev7:9After these things I looked, and behold, a great mul***ude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying, "Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever Amen."

But the God of all of the universe who created all things:

Rev:3:11"Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created."

Why do you suppose? When this one God with whom we have to deal says that there will be no Gods made either before Him or after Him it is best to believe Him. It is the same God that created Adam before there was an Israel and the same God of the mul***ude above - the Bible is truth for all.

Blessings,

MacG

Again, the context is false gods and idol worship, and the source of our salvation. The only God that can bring man to salvation is the One True God. There are no others.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-21-2010, 07:51 PM

The way that I see it the LDS god did not really create anything. Your intelligence or essence was not created by god, your physical body was not created by god, and your spiritual body was not created by god but rather organized using pre-existing material.

Yep. Wonderful, isn't it? What God can do with unorganized materials. That is one reason why we worship Him.

On the other hand, you would say that your essence was created by God, and God built your essence to choose whatever he wanted you to choose, and so you have no free will.

BTW can you tell us how God took your preexisting intelligence and made a spirit body? Did he incorporate you intelligence into his sperm to impregnated your heavenly mother after which she then went on to deliver you. Or do you believe that he just created a spirit body for your preexisting intelligence without the need for a heavenly mother. If this is the case what is the role for a heavenly mother at all?

Thanks for capitalizing God. Oh I had to do it for you. Thank goodness for editing huh?

No, I can't tell you how God did it all. Can you tell me how God conjured up your personality? And why he built you to choose what you have chosen in your life?

nrajeff

02-21-2010, 07:56 PM

Read and learn your Bible and quit with the childish nonsense games.
--The way I see it, it's not a childish game to ask you about your "interesting" ("The entire Trinity has always been, is now, and forever will be, in agony on the cross") beliefs.

God created Adam and Eve.....all the rest of humanity came from them, so what you are saying is nonsense and no....The Bible says that God rested and is at rest from creating.
--So you admit that you believe that God didn't create you. That's a good start toward correcting your erroneous beliefs.

Why are you trying to make it look like I said something that I did not say?
---Why are you saying things that are so...interesting?

Billyray

02-21-2010, 08:05 PM

Thanks for capitalizing God. Oh I had to do it for you. Thank goodness for editing huh?

I have done that on purpose but I think that you are the first to notice. When I am speaking about a false god I try to remember to NOT capitalize it. So when I am speaking about the LDS god I do not capitalize it because there is only one true God, which I capitalize of course.

MacG

02-21-2010, 08:54 PM

Again, the context is false gods and idol worship, and the source of our salvation. The only God that can bring man to salvation is the One True God. There are no others.

However there are others like Him - just not in this cluster of heavens that He created?

MacG

Billyray

02-21-2010, 09:04 PM

Again, the context is false gods and idol worship, and the source of our salvation. The only God that can bring man to salvation is the One True God. There are no others.

Isaiah 43:10 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Fig, you are saying that this is talking about "false gods" only? So the verse would read

. . .before me there was no (false) God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Do you believe that no false gods were formed after God? Does this make any sense to you at all?

MacG

02-21-2010, 09:12 PM

Isaiah 43:10 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Fig, you are saying that this is talking about "false gods" only? So the verse would read

. . .before me there was no (false) God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Do you believe that no false gods were formed after God? Does this make any sense to you at all?

Billy what he is insisting on is context. The context is that God is only speaking ot the Israelites and there is only one God - for them and this creation and He is mute about other gods and other created heavens.

I suspect what might convince Fig is if the Bible said that "Not only do I know of no other Gods, I know of no others in yonder heavens either".
MacG

Billyray

02-21-2010, 09:21 PM

Billy what he is insisting on is context. The context is that God is only speaking ot the Israelites and there is only one God - for them and this creation and He is mute about other gods and other created heavens.

MacG

But that is not what the verse states and I know that Fig knows it. In the LDS theology there were gods formed before god the Father so this is a lie per their own thinking. Another point is that the God of the OT for LDS is Jehovah/Jesus not the Father. Look up LORD in the LDS Bible dictionary for clarification.

Isaiah 43:10 "Ye are my witnesses, saith (Jesus), and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am He: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

This makes no sense at all no matter how you slice it.

MacG

02-21-2010, 09:39 PM

But that is not what the verse states and I know that Fig knows it. In the LDS theology there were gods formed before god the Father so this is a lie per their own thinking. Another point is that the God of the OT for LDS is Jehovah/Jesus not the Father. Look up LORD in the LDS Bible dictionary for clarification.

Isaiah 43:10 "Ye are my witnesses, saith (Jesus), and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am He: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

This makes no sense at all no matter how you slice it.

But for Fig the Father is not the God who can save therefore there is no other God.

Fig correct me if I am wrong about that.

I do not have the "luxury" to hold on to other "holy" books that imtimate that there are other Gods who can save just not in these heavens. So I am stuck with the Bible that was good enough for Jesus and led us to believe that there are no other true Gods period. At least the corrupt sects that JS was warned not to join had nothing to do with the Old Testament so it is safe and remains as pure as the Bible that Jesus read.

MacG

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-22-2010, 10:56 AM

I have done that on purpose but I think that you are the first to notice. When I am speaking about a false god I try to remember to NOT capitalize it. So when I am speaking about the LDS god I do not capitalize it because there is only one true God, which I capitalize of course.

Oh, we all notice. It is just an indication of how far you have fallen.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-22-2010, 11:15 AM

However there are others like Him - just not in this cluster of heavens that He created?

MacG

There are other gods, yes. Of course.

I suggest we both read this paper, and I will to, and then we can discuss the implications

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1278&context=lts_fac_pubs

Thanks.

Billyray

02-22-2010, 11:21 AM

Oh, we all notice. It is just an indication of how far you have fallen.

Fig, there is only one true God. The LDS gods (polytheism) do not line up with what is taught in the Bible. I am sorry to give you that news but it is the truth. You can try to justify your position by attacking me personally, but that does not change the facts.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-22-2010, 11:51 AM

Fig, there is only one true God. The LDS gods (polytheism) do not line up with what is taught in the Bible. I am sorry to give you that news but it is the truth. You can try to justify your position by attacking me personally, but that does not change the facts.

It is your disrespect of God that I am attacking.

akaSeerone

02-22-2010, 12:08 PM

It is your disrespect of God that I am attacking.
Fig....you don't even know who God is....or did you forget you are mormon...and you have the gall to say he is disrespecting God?

If you really think he is disrespecting God....prove it.

Andy

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-22-2010, 12:11 PM

Fig....you don't even know who God is....or did you forget you are mormon...and you have the gall to say he is disrespecting God?

If you really think he is disrespecting God....prove it.

Andy

lower case "g"

Do a little reading, Andy.

Billyray

02-22-2010, 12:57 PM

It is your disrespect of God that I am attacking.

Fig, the god that you believe in is completely different than the God the Biblical Christians believe in. The LDS god and the Biblical God have characteristics that are mutually exclusive and thus both can't be true. One is true or the other is true but not both. The bottom line is that the LDS gods (polytheism) do not conform to the only true God of the Bible, thus the LDS god is a false god. I do not praise or give respect to false gods. My respect, honor, praise and worship are to the only true and living God.

akaSeerone

02-22-2010, 01:49 PM

lower case "g"

Do a little reading, Andy.
Here is what you said.

It is your disrespect of God that I am attacking.

I do not see a lower case g for God.

And if you are referring to the mormon god, then the lower case g is appropriate.

If you don't think it is I would like to see you prove from the Bible that it isn't.

The mormon god is not found in the Bible except where ever it talks about false gods and that should be enough to get you to doing some serious thinking about your false prophet Smith and the anti-Christian church he started.

Andy

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-22-2010, 02:04 PM

Here is what you said.

I do not see a lower case g for God.

And if you are referring to the mormon god, then the lower case g is appropriate.

See there you are too. Blaspheming and being irreverent. You cannot be Christian when you blaspheme the God of Christianity like that.

akaSeerone

02-22-2010, 02:13 PM

See there you are too. Blaspheming and being irreverent. You cannot be Christian when you blaspheme the God of Christianity like that.
Sorry you feel that way fig.

I am being just about irreverent as Elijah was to the false gods and prophets of Baal.

If you want to talk about irreverent, talk about how irreverent Smith was to the God of the Bible....it doesn't get any worse than what he did.

Smith couldn't of believed in God the way he ran God through the mud.

I know it has to be hard on you being in a cult and all.

We are praying for you.

Andy

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-22-2010, 02:30 PM

Smith couldn't of believed in God the way he ran God through the mud.

More hot air on your part, Andy.

Joseph certainly argued against the sectarian notion of God as promoted by orthodox theologians of his time, if that's what you mean. But he had the highest adoration and reverence for God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.

Father_JD

02-22-2010, 02:35 PM

More hot air on your part, Andy.

Joseph certainly argued against the sectarian notion of God as promoted by orthodox theologians of his time, if that's what you mean. But he had the highest adoration and reverence for God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.

Hmmmm. Making God in the likeness of men...going as far as to say God hasn't always been God, but some schmuck on an imaginary planet/sun called "Kolob" who earned his godhood merit badge at some kind of celestial jamboree is having "the highest adoration and reverence"??? :eek:

Hardly. JS created an IDOL from his own imagination. The Mormon god ain't the biblical God, Fig. :rolleyes:

nrajeff

02-22-2010, 07:29 PM

Hmmmm. Making God in the likeness of men...going as far as to say God hasn't always been God, but some schmuck on an imaginary planet/sun called "Kolob" who earned his godhood merit badge at some kind of celestial jamboree...
---Yet YOU believed, FOR DECADES, that all that was not only plausible, but TRUE, FJD. What excuse do you have for being so stewpid as to believe all that stuff?

Billyray

02-22-2010, 07:35 PM

---Yet YOU believed, FOR DECADES, that all that was not only plausible, but TRUE, FJD. What excuse do you have for being so stewpid as to believe all that stuff?

I believed that as well Jeff, but the fact that someone believes something does not make it true. I was clearly blinded by the enemy.

nrajeff

02-22-2010, 08:18 PM

I believed that as well Jeff, but the fact that someone believes something does not make it true.
--Nor does the fact that you renounced it make UNtrue.

I was clearly blinded by the enemy.
---Sure, "clearly" .. :D

Father_JD

02-23-2010, 05:10 PM

---Yet YOU believed, FOR DECADES, that all that was not only plausible, but TRUE, FJD. What excuse do you have for being so stewpid as to believe all that stuff?

LOL! I believed it because I didn't know any better, jeff...First of all, I read the Bible in bits and pieces LIKE YOU, and really didn't KNOW the Bible. Secondly, I was indoctrinated to MISREAD the Bible just like YOU until God bestowed GRACE upon me and enabled me to read the Holy Text IN CONTEXT.

What's YOUR excuse for still believing in JS IDOL?? :eek:

nrajeff

02-23-2010, 08:22 PM

LOL! I believed it because I didn't know any better, jeff...First of all, I read the Bible in bits and pieces LIKE YOU, and really didn't KNOW the Bible. Secondly, I was indoctrinated to MISREAD the Bible just like YOU until God bestowed GRACE upon me and enabled me to read the Holy Text IN CONTEXT.

What's YOUR excuse for still believing in JS IDOL?? :eek:

---Simple: The God of Evanism hasn't deigned to bestow any of that capriciously applied GRACE on me yet. So there's my excuse! Cool, huh?

Billyray

02-23-2010, 08:53 PM

---Simple: The God of Evanism hasn't deigned to bestow any of that capriciously applied GRACE on me yet. So there's my excuse!

Jeff, the saddest part of your statement is that it is likely true. But I am holding on to the "YET" in your statement. He dragged me out of Mormonism, I wouldn't be surprised that He does the same for you at some point in your life. Regeneration (born again) is the work of God and not of man. Without being born again you can't even see the kingdom of God. I think that is why you are having such hard time understanding Biblical doctrine.

John 3:3 "In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." (NIV)

nrajeff

02-24-2010, 07:41 AM

Jeff, the saddest part of your statement is that it is likely true.
---I agree: The belief that God is that capricious and micro-managing, IS sad. That's why I reject it.

But I am holding on to the "YET" in your statement. He dragged me out of Mormonism, I wouldn't be surprised that He does the same for you at some point in your life.
--I would be VERY surprised if that were to happen, since so far no other set of doctrines makes as much sense and portrays God as rationally.

Regeneration (born again) is the work of God and not of man. Without being born again you can't even see the kingdom of God. I think that is why you are having such hard time understanding Biblical doctrine.
---You don't see how "cult-think" that idea is? "The reason our beliefs seem illogical and unfair to you, is simply because God hasn't called you to be one of "the Body" and you are therefore UNABLE to understand these concepts." What a great (but condescending) excuse for the illogic of one's beliefs. Didn't the Gnostics have similar reasoning?

John 3:3 "In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." (NIV)
---Does that explain why you fail to see the kingdom of God among the LDS? :)

Billyray

02-24-2010, 09:48 AM

Regeneration (born again) is the work of God and not of man. Without being born again you can't even see the kingdom of God.

---You don't see how "cult-think" that idea is? "The reason our beliefs seem illogical and unfair to you, is simply because God hasn't called you to be one of "the Body" and you are therefore UNABLE to understand these concepts." What a great (but condescending) excuse for the illogic of one's beliefs. Didn't the Gnostics have similar reasoning?

Jeff, did you cause yourself to be physically born? Who regenerates you, God OR do you do it yourself with the aid of your priesthood?

nrajeff

02-24-2010, 10:33 AM

Billy, who causes you to learn and understand stuff? ONLY God? Who gets the credit when you understand and accept teachings about God, Jesus, and the gospel? Who gets the blame when you FAIL to understand those things? If you believe that God is solely and directly responsible for all your successes, then have fun with the hyperCalvinists, but try to realize that such reasoning, taken to its conclusion, ends up blaming God for all your failures, too. Oh, and the HyperCalvinists are somewhat of an extremist fringe of Evangelicalism, which itself is a minority subset of modern Christendom.

akaSeerone

02-24-2010, 10:55 AM

nrajeff

02-24-2010, 11:09 AM

OK, let's go along with what you say and put the blame on God.
So what!?!?
Without God where are we?
No where....we wouldn't exist.
Without God what are we.
Nothing....we would not exist.
You antis have a lot of nerve point you wretched bonny fingers at God and blaming Him for what man did to His perfect creation.
As the saying goes....God have mercy on your soul...in hell.
Andy

--Andy, as usual you don't have a CLUE what you are talking about. It's NOT the LDS who put the blame on God, it's the anti-LDS who don't consider the end-result of their doctrine.

akaSeerone

02-24-2010, 11:46 AM

--Andy, as usual you don't have a CLUE what you are talking about. It's NOT the LDS who put the blame on God, it's the anti-LDS who don't consider the end-result of their doctrine.
Get real mormon

It is you mormons that falsely accuse us Christians of blaming God because as mormon you have no clue about Biblical context and thus you are the one that has no idea what YOU are talking about and that in the long run does have you mormons blaming God.

Andy

Billyray

02-24-2010, 11:50 AM

Billyray

02-24-2010, 12:01 PM

Who gets the credit when you understand and accept teachings about God, Jesus, and the gospel?.
God.

You and I are a perfect example of this. You and I both have a reasonable familiarity with the Bible, yet we have come to complete opposite conclusions to what the exact same words state. Why is that do you think?

John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Jeff you can study and study and study but you will not see unless you are born again. When (or if in your case) you are regenerated you will see the truth. Regeneration is a work of God.

nrajeff

02-24-2010, 09:46 PM

Who said anything about Calvinism? You of course.
---That's probably because you don't want to admit what your beliefs are, or where you learned them. Prove me wrong and tell me that you REJECT the TULIP's 5 points. And tell me that you didn't learn your current beliefs from some Calvinist Evangelicals. I am calling your bluff, and I should have done so long ago.

Who regenerates you, God OR do you do it yourself with the aid of your priesthood?
---God, of course, but it's irrelevant to what we were discussing.

Billyray

02-24-2010, 09:56 PM

---That's probably because you don't want to admit what your beliefs are, or where you learned them.

My beliefs are taken straight from the Bible, that is where I learned them and that is the standard that I hold for each belief.

nrajeff

02-24-2010, 10:56 PM

My beliefs are taken straight from the Bible, that is where I learned them and that is the standard that I hold for each belief.

---Well, thanks for letting that much trickle out, but are you seriously claiming that you just read the Bible, with ZERO input from any Evangelicals, and voila, you ended up with your current beliefs? And what about my other question--do you really reject all 5 points of TULIP? Do you think I am really that gullible?

Billyray

02-24-2010, 11:59 PM

---Well, thanks for letting that much trickle out, but are you seriously claiming that you just read the Bible, with ZERO input from any Evangelicals, and voila, you ended up with your current beliefs? And what about my other question--do you really reject all 5 points of TULIP? Do you think I am really that gullible?
You sure seem hung up on Calvinism. Why is that ?

nrajeff

02-25-2010, 06:44 AM

You sure seem hung up on Calvinism. Why is that ?

---Besides the fact that it's an insult to God? Not much. Why do YOU seem so hung up on not admitting whether or not you subscribe to it? Does it embarr*** you that much? Then why not renounce it and come back to correct theology and soteriology? What does God think of your perpetual fence-sitting? Why not take a stand, either FOR TULIP, or AGAINST it? Are you afraid of the scorn that MEN will pour out on you if you come out of the closet?

Billyray

02-25-2010, 09:08 AM

------Besides the fact that it's an insult to God? Not much. Why do YOU seem so hung up on not admitting whether or not you subscribe to it?

Jeff, you really don't get it--do you? You seem to want to pigeon hole Christians into taking their ideas and theology from extra-Biblical sources and/or their pastors and leaders. Do you think that it is impossible for a person to take his beliefs from scripture alone? If so why do you believe that?

nrajeff

02-25-2010, 10:38 AM

Jeff, you really don't get it--do you?
---How can I get something that is like pulling teeth to get out of you? Why are you so afraid to actually TELL US WHAT YOUR BELIEFS ARE on the relevant issues--theology, Christology, and soteriology? FJD isn't scared to admit what HE is. Maybe you can take some courage from his example and just come out of that closet. Or maybe not. We will see.

You seem to want to pigeon hole Christians into taking their ideas and theology from extra-Biblical sources and/or their pastors and leaders.
--Well, gee, let's see: The LUTHERANS seem to have been influenced by....LUTHER. The Methodists by Wesley. The Augustinians and about 90% of today's Christians by...AUGUSTINE. See a pattern developing? No? Get the blinders off then.

Do you think that it is impossible for a person to take his beliefs from scripture alone?
---No, I don't think it's impossible. I just don't believe that YOU did it. I think such learning-in-a-total-vacuum is extremely rare these days. I don't see how you could even come close to Vincenzo Di Francesca's experience, where he found a cover-less BOM in a trash can and became converted to its teachings ONLY though his own reading of the book--no outside "exegeters," commentaries, or systematic theologies.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=e01379356427b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Still waiting for you to quit playing "In the closet" regarding what you believe. Sheesh, you're not doing a stellar *** of teaching others what you believe, like missionaries of various faiths are supposed to do. I know, from decades of experience including my own mission, that it's not always easy, or pleasant, or comfortable telling others what one's beliefs are. And it's more fun to play Sniper and shoot at others from a hidden position of safety. But you lose credibility every time you have a chance to share but choose not to.

Billyray

02-25-2010, 11:12 AM

et out of you? Why are you so afraid to actually TELL US WHAT YOUR BELIEFS ARE on the relevant issues--theology, Christology, and soteriology?
Actually you do know what I believe at least in part if you have read my posts.

One God who was NOT a man who lived on another planet who lived and died and then worked his way up to become a god. A God who was not married to multiple wives and had sex to produce spiritual babies. A God who has been God from everlasting to everlasting as God. I believe in salvation by faith and not by works. I believe that the LDS temple is a man made en***y and the rituals a mockery to God. I don't believe in polygamy. I don't believe in ***hing for the NT church. I believe that people were elected before the foundation of the world.

What other specific questions do you have for me?

Father_JD

02-25-2010, 05:07 PM

---Simple: The God of Evanism hasn't deigned to bestow any of that capriciously applied GRACE on me yet. So there's my excuse! Cool, huh?

Hey, jeff! Paul had YOU in mind when he wrote the following:

Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Rom 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

But jeff says, YES! There IS unrighteousness with the Biblical GOD!!

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have comp***ion on whom I will have comp***ion.

Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

nrajeff

02-25-2010, 05:53 PM

I don't find fault with GOD, I find it with your eisegesis of His words. :D

Father_JD

02-26-2010, 02:35 PM

I don't find fault with GOD, I find it with your eisegesis of His words. :D

Well then, jeff...just show me how I "eisegeted" the p***ages, 'k? I think they're more than clear...the TRUTH is you don't like them because they can't be contorted to agree with Mormon doctrine. :D

MacG

02-26-2010, 03:00 PM

There are other gods, yes. Of course.
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1278&context=lts_fac_pubs

Thanks.

Just none like Him as he says:
1. Possessing the characteristics of; resembling closely; similar to.

1. In the typical manner of: It's not like you to take offense.
2. In the same way as: lived like royalty.
3. Inclined or disposed to: felt like running away.
4. As if the probability exists for: looks like a bad year for farmers.
5. Such as; for example: saved things like old newspapers and pieces of string.

adj.

1. Possessing the same or almost the same characteristics; similar: on this and like occasions.
2. Alike: They are as like as two siblings.
3. Having equivalent value or quality. Usually used in negative sentences: There's nothing like a good night's sleep.

n.

1. One similar to or like another. Used with the: was subject to coughs, asthma, and the like.
2. Informal. An equivalent or similar person or thing; an equal or match. Often used in the plural: I've never seen the likes of this before. We'll never see his like again.

So if there are no other Gods LIKE him, what are these other Gods like?

Grace and peace,

MacG

nrajeff

02-26-2010, 03:05 PM

Hey, jeff! Paul had YOU in mind when he wrote the following:

Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
---But my name is neither Jacob nor Esau...however it's nice if Paul was thinking of me. I am sure it was with fondness, and maybe some jealousy, too: "Dang, I wish I had mad debating skillz like that dude does..."

Rom 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
But jeff says, YES! There IS unrighteousness with the Biblical GOD!!

--Really? I don't recall having said that God is unrighteous. Maybe I have Alzheimer's and don't realize it. Dang short-term memory...or maybe, just MAYBE, THIS is what's going on:

http://www.nerolarp.com/mythodea/mythodea_straw_man.jpg

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have comp***ion on whom I will have comp***ion.
---You better let your buddies know about this verse, because some of them are already saying that God won't have any mercy OR comp***ion on those evil old Mormons if they don't convert over to CLDS before death do us part. Apparently the Bible begs to differ with the contras.

Father_JD

02-27-2010, 05:42 PM

---But my name is neither Jacob nor Esau...however it's nice if Paul was thinking of me. I am sure it was with fondness, and maybe some jealousy, too: "Dang, I wish I had mad debating skillz like that dude does..."

Are you deliberately MISSING the point, jeff?? That God ELECTS some but NOT all? That He elected Jacob but NOT Esau??? :eek: And you know full well I was referring to Paul's castigation of those WHO DENY GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY IN ELECTION...and you're one of them, jeff.

--Really? I don't recall having said that God is unrighteous. Maybe I have Alzheimer's and don't realize it. Dang short-term memory...or maybe, just MAYBE, THIS is what's going on:

You are in FACT and DEED calling God unrighteous because He elects this or than one, and OTHERS (such as Pharoah) HE HARDENS. You fit Paul's criteria to a "T", jeff. I suggest you really take this seriously for a change, and read and re-read the whole chapter until you understand just how blasphemous you've been! :(

---You better let your buddies know about this verse, because some of them are already saying that God won't have any mercy OR comp***ion on those evil old Mormons if they don't convert over to CLDS before death do us part. Apparently the Bible begs to differ with the contras.

It's double-edged, jeff. Again, read the chapter.

nrajeff

02-27-2010, 10:44 PM

Are you deliberately MISSING the point, jeff?? ------There was no real point to miss.

That God ELECTS some but NOT all?
---Not the issue. The issue is WHY does He only elect some? You Calvinists have no sane answer to that question.

And you know full well I was referring to Paul's castigation of those WHO DENY GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY IN ELECTION...and you're one of them, jeff.
---Hey, if by that you mean that I deny that God is CAPRICIOUS in how He chooses His elect, then I am guilty as charged.

You are in FACT and DEED calling God unrighteous because He elects this or than one, and OTHERS (such as Pharoah) HE HARDENS.
--Actually, it's YOU who is calling Him unrighteous, since you deny that His criteria for choosing is fair. An unfair God is an unrighteous God. You lose the debate again.

Father_JD

02-28-2010, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
Are you deliberately MISSING the point, jeff??

------There was no real point to miss.

The "point", jeff? It isn't the one who "runs after" or "wills it" (i.e. ELECTION) but GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY, jeff. That's the point you keep EVADING. :eek:

Quote:
That God ELECTS some but NOT all?

---Not the issue. The issue is WHY does He only elect some? You Calvinists have no sane answer to that question.

Is this an admittance that GOD INDEED ELECTS ONLY SOME? :eek:

Quote:
And you know full well I was referring to Paul's castigation of those WHO DENY GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY IN ELECTION...and you're one of them, jeff.

---Hey, if by that you mean that I deny that God is CAPRICIOUS in how He chooses His elect, then I am guilty as charged.

LOL. I DENY that God is CAPRICIOUS as well, jeff. He has His own REASONS, according to His own WILL, dude.

Quote:
You are in FACT and DEED calling God unrighteous because He elects this or than one, and OTHERS (such as Pharoah) HE HARDENS.

--Actually, it's YOU who is calling Him unrighteous, since you deny that His criteria for choosing is fair. An unfair God is an unrighteous God. You lose the debate again.

His criteria is necessarily FAIR, jeff. ALL deserve JUSTICE, but God decrees some will receive MERCY and NOT justice.

Let's say there are four people on death row, all guilty of murder in the 1st degree, all deserving of death. The governor (according to his own reasons not known to anyone) deigns to RELEASE one of the murderers but to keep the other three on death row.

The question: Is the governor UNFAIR or UNRIGHETEOUS because he pardoned one but not the others??

You just might start understanding this important BIBLICAL doctrine if you can start thinking CORRECTLY:

God owes NO ONE MERCY. God owes NO ONE GRACE, otherwise, it isn't mercy or grace!! :eek:

nrajeff

03-01-2010, 10:42 AM

The "point", jeff? It isn't the one who "runs after" or "wills it" (i.e. ELECTION) but GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY, jeff. That's the point you keep EVADING. :eek:
---I am not evading that. I believe that God shows mercy, silly. The point YOU keep evading with your straw men is WHY He shows mercy to some and not to others. Of course, we all know why you have to run from that: In Calvinism, God has no recognizably coherent, fair, ethical explanation for His decisions. You can't say "Sure He has a reasonable system: He saves all the people who hear and accept the gospel while in this life, and He sends the rest to hel.l" You cant say that because, as we already showed, Calvinism's Sovereignty + Predestination mixture is a cart-before-horse deal, where it's NOT a case of "You did what was requried, ERGO you get to be saved"---instead, Calvinism goes "You got saved, THEREFORE you will accept Jesus & get baptized & believe in and understand the Trinity etc." THAT is the still-fatal flaw in Calvinistic theology and soteriology. THAT is what makes God into a capricious petty tyrant. It leaves you with a lame explanation for why God shows mercy to some but not others: "It's because God said so, that's why!" which the average parenting cl*** teacher would say is not a mature reason. Certainly not what a good parent would use to justify an unfair decision.

Is this an admittance that GOD INDEED ELECTS ONLY SOME? :eek:
----You are lost again if you think I said that He doesn't.

And you know full well I was referring to Paul's castigation of those WHO DENY GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY IN ELECTION...and you're one of them, jeff.
---LOL.

LOL. I DENY that God is CAPRICIOUS as well, jeff. He has His own REASONS, according to His own WILL, dude.
---Yeah, and you think His reason is "Because I said so, and you better not look into it too much or you'll go to hell!" Great parenting skills there.

You are in FACT and DEED calling God unrighteous because He elects this or than one

---Saying that God's system is a meritocracy isn't calling Him unrighteous, silly. JD, you REALLY need to come back to a sane explanation for God's decisions. Come back to the LDS. We do take prodigals back, you know.

and OTHERS (such as Pharoah) HE HARDENS
---I thought all you textual critics and exegesis experts decided that "God hardens some" can't really mean that, since it would make God the creator of evil. Didn't you guys decide that it's just an idiom, just poetic license? And that it REALLY means something other than what it seems to be saying?

Let's say there are four people on death row, all guilty of murder in the 1st degree, all deserving of death. The governor (according to his own reasons not known to anyone) deigns to RELEASE one of the murderers but to keep the other three on death row.
----That is a great ****ogy to the unfairness of Calvinism. You have my blessings to proceed.

The question: Is the governor UNFAIR or UNRIGHETEOUS because he pardoned one but not the others??
---Of COURSE he is. He is unrighteous BECAUSE his system is unfair. To treat one person different from another even though both did the same thing for the same reason, is patently unfair by definition. Any Ethics 101 student could tell you that. (Unless the student has fallen for Calvinism, in which case he might give you some nonsensical answer.)

Suppose you were a Jew in Nazi Germany or Poland, and the SS came by and lined all your children up against a wall and shot them. And then the SS gave you next-door neighbor's kids a p***, for no reason. I can see you saying "Well. THAT was fair to my children."

God owes NO ONE MERCY.
--Sure He does. He owes mercy to all those who deserve it for any number of reasons. Giving mercy to those who deserve it is what makes God a wise, fair, MERCIFUL God. YOUR God is merciless if He can't dispense mercy to the penitent, the retarded, the aborted and abused children, and to those like Mother Teresa and Ghandi who spend their lives doing good in the world at great personal sacrifice.

God owes NO ONE GRACE, otherwise, it isn't mercy or grace!!
---Wherever God DOES give out grace, He needs to do it on a fair basis. Otherwise, it's UNFAIR. Paul said "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Your version would have him saying "Sin abounded, and grace? Well, it abounded a little, because it only abounded in the case of the randomly chosen few."
Then there is 2 Corinthians 6:1--"We beseech you...receive not the grace of God in vain." And then there is ***us 2:11 nasb "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men." Seems like maybe God offers grace to all, not to just a randomly chosen few. Those who receive it in vain become the reason it did them no good, which makes the system FAIR. Your version has God not even OFFERING grace to most people, based on the lame "I won't even offer grace to many and the reason is because I said so." Lame.

akaSeerone

03-01-2010, 11:00 AM

God's fairness is not decided by you....it is decided by God and the Bible says that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy.

Your argument reeks of man and is wrong.

Proverbs 14

11The house of the wicked shall be overthrown: but the tabernacle of the upright shall flourish.

12There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

AGAIN here is what Paul taught and it takes a God hating rebellious mind to twist it into what you said.

Romans 9

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have comp***ion on whom I will have comp***ion.

16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
How did you miss that no one deserves anything from God and it is by Grace we are saved and not of ourselves lest anyone should boast?

Andy

nrajeff

03-01-2010, 11:26 AM

Question for Andy: Does God's system of grace-withholding, as you understand it, seem right to you?

yes
no

akaSeerone

03-01-2010, 11:41 AM

Question for Andy: Does God's system of grace-withholding, as you understand it, seem right to you?

yes
no
I am a born again Christian, so yes it seems right to me without a doubt.

You have no argument and are making a Biblical fool of yourself here.

Andy

nrajeff

03-01-2010, 12:12 PM

I am a born again Christian, so yes it seems right to me without a doubt.

---Explain how it seems right for God to be unfair.

akaSeerone

03-01-2010, 06:08 PM

---Explain how it seems right for God to be unfair.
Hey you're the one that can't put two and two together when it comes to Biblical things....God is not being unfair in the slightest.

You remind me of how Adam accused God of giving him Eve and causing him to sin, thus blaming God for what he (Adam) did.

Andy

Father_JD

03-01-2010, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
The "point", jeff? It isn't the one who "runs after" or "wills it" (i.e. ELECTION) but GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY, jeff. That's the point you keep EVADING.

---I am not evading that. I believe that God shows mercy, silly. The point YOU keep evading with your straw men is WHY He shows mercy to some and not to others...

You've been told, jeff: ACCORDING TO HIS OWN GOOD WILL AND PLEASURE WHATEVER THOSE REASONS MIGHT BE TO WHICH WE'RE NOT PRIVY. You've EVADED the whole 9th chapter of Romans. You REFUSE to engage it exegetically because it can't be contorted to fit Mormon dogma and you know it.

...Of course, we all know why you have to run from that: In Calvinism, God has no recognizably coherent, fair, ethical explanation for His decisions. You can't say "Sure He has a reasonable system: He saves all the people who hear and accept the gospel while in this life, and He sends the rest to hel.l" You cant say that because, as we already showed, Calvinism's Sovereignty + Predestination mixture is a cart-before-horse deal, where it's NOT a case of "You did what was requried, ERGO you get to be saved"---

I'll let the Apostle Paul answer that...Now pay attention to HIS words for once:

Rom 9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Rom 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have comp***ion on whom I will have comp***ion.

Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

He who has ears, let him hear, jeff:

Re-read these verses until they finally make an impact on you:

God will have comp***ion on whom He so chooses. Election/salvation is NOT OF HIM THAT WILLS IT, NOR OF HIM THAT RUNS AFTER IT...but SOLELY by GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY.

Paul says you're WRONG in your beliefs regarding this.

...instead, Calvinism goes "You got saved, THEREFORE you will accept Jesus & get baptized & believe in and understand the Trinity etc." ...

No, the Bible "goes" that one is DEAD in tressp*** and sin, and that one MUST be first "born from above" (which MEANS spiritual REGENERATION), THEN that one can be saved by calling on Jesus IN FAITH. No one "understands" the Trinity other than acknowledging that scripture declares The Father is GOD, the SON is GOD, the Holy Spirit is GOD. The three "persons" ARE the one God...and this oneness surp***es "one in purpose" of Mormon doctrine (cf. John 10:30)

...THAT is the still-fatal flaw in Calvinistic theology and soteriology. THAT is what makes God into a capricious petty tyrant. It leaves you with a lame explanation for why God shows mercy to some but not others: "It's because God said so, that's why!" which the average parenting cl*** teacher would say is not a mature reason. Certainly not what a good parent would use to justify an unfair decision.

See answer above via the Apostle Paul who sez you're WRONG, jeff.

Quote:
Is this an admittance that GOD INDEED ELECTS ONLY SOME?

----You are lost again if you think I said that He doesn't.

Huh? You lost me there. I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Quote:
And you know full well I was referring to Paul's castigation of those WHO DENY GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY IN ELECTION...and you're one of them, jeff.

---LOL.

Why do you laugh out loud when you've demonstrated time and again that's EXACTLY the thing you do, jeff? :eek:

Quote:
LOL. I DENY that God is CAPRICIOUS as well, jeff. He has His own REASONS, according to His own WILL, dude.

---Yeah, and you think His reason is "Because I said so, and you better not look into it too much or you'll go to hell!" Great parenting skills there.

Re-read Romans 9 which I reprinted above, jeff. Paul ANSWERS YOU. When are you gonna realize your argument is with the Biblical writers, NOT with Calvin or me? :eek:

Quote:
You are in FACT and DEED calling God unrighteous because He elects this or than one

---Saying that God's system is a [I]meritocracy isn't calling Him unrighteous, silly. JD, you REALLY need to come back to a sane explanation for God's decisions. Come back to the LDS. We do take prodigals back, you know.

You weren't paying attention to Paul, jeff:

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have comp***ion on whom I will have comp***ion.

Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

How is it you don't understand, jeff? Paul just said that election/salvation is not "meritorious". It's NOT of the one who "wills" electon/salvation...it's NOT of him that "runs" after it...it's only of GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY.

Paul just contradicted your theology, jeff. When are you going to believe Jesus and Paul over and above what Joseph Smith told you to believe??? :eek:

Father_JD

03-01-2010, 08:06 PM

Quote:
and OTHERS (such as Pharoah) HE HARDENS

---I thought all you textual critics and exegesis experts decided that "God hardens some" can't really mean that, since it would make God the creator of evil. Didn't you guys decide that it's just an idiom, just poetic license? And that it REALLY means something other than what it seems to be saying?

It's a P***IVE "hardening"...NOT "active", jeff. All God has to do withdraw any restraints that he had placed on the individual.

Quote:
Let's say there are four people on death row, all guilty of murder in the 1st degree, all deserving of death. The governor (according to his own reasons not known to anyone) deigns to RELEASE one of the murderers but to keep the other three on death row.

----That is a great ****ogy to the unfairness of Calvinism. You have my blessings to proceed.

Nope. A great ****ogy as to WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES REGARDING ELECTION AND SALVATION, jeff. Why do you "kick against the goads"?? :eek:

Quote:
The question: Is the governor UNFAIR or UNRIGHETEOUS because he pardoned one but not the others??

---Of COURSE he is. He is unrighteous BECAUSE his system is unfair. To treat one person different from another even though both did the same thing for the same reason, is patently unfair by definition. Any Ethics 101 student could tell you that. (Unless the student has fallen for Calvinism, in which case he might give you some nonsensical answer.)

Ahhh. Good ol' fashioned fleshy reasoning, jeff, and actually demonstrates you have no idea what "grace" or "mercy" mean. ALL were deserving of death but because he chooses one to live he's "unfair" to the others in your mind. In three words, jeff: You are wrong.

Suppose you were a Jew in Nazi Germany or Poland, and the SS came by and lined all your children up against a wall and shot them. And then the SS gave you next-door neighbor's kids a p***, for no reason. I can see you saying "Well. THAT was fair to my children."

Not if ALL the children were "guilty" of death, jeff. This is WHY your ****ogy FAILS, dude. You keep thinking people are all "innocent", so therefore if some are spared and others are not, God's NOT FAIR. You're also in error by categorizing God's SOVEREIGN DECREES AS HAVING "NO REASONS".

He most certainly has His "reasons", jeff. This is why you're argument consistently FAILS against scripture.

Quote:
God owes NO ONE MERCY.

--Sure He does. He owes mercy to all those who deserve it for any number of reasons. Giving mercy to those who deserve it is what makes God a wise, fair, MERCIFUL God. YOUR God is merciless if He can't dispense mercy to the penitent, the retarded, the aborted and abused children, and to those like Mother Teresa and Ghandi who spend their lives doing good in the world at great personal sacrifice.

1. No one deserves "mercy". Hence you are in error.
2. The "penitent" have already been shown mercy and grace. Hence God does NOT "reward" penitence.
3. All have SINNED, jeff. You have zero biblical concept of how wicked sin is, dude, nor God's HATRED for it.
4. You have zero concept of the HOLINESS OF GOD.

Hence you're nothing but in error in your thinking and your theology because you refuse to believe the Bible regarding these things. :eek:

Quote:
God owes NO ONE GRACE, otherwise, it isn't mercy or grace!!

---Wherever God DOES give out grace, He needs to do it on a fair basis. Otherwise, it's UNFAIR. Paul said "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Your version would have him saying "Sin abounded, and grace? Well, it abounded a little, because it only abounded in the case of the randomly chosen few."

Misapplication of the text, jeff. According to Mormon thinking, there shouldn't be ANY grace BECAUSE SIN ABOUNDED. Think about that. You're going contrary to Mormon belief.

Then there is 2 Corinthians 6:1--"We beseech you...receive not the grace of God in vain." And then there is ***us 2:11 nasb "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men."

The text is NOT saying that God has bestowed salvation universally upon mankind. He MEANS that grace and salvation has come upon not only upon Jews, but upon ALL MEN, gentiles of all nationalities, etc. You've gotta begin READING IN CONTEXT for once. And if I might point out, you've done yet again the Mormon "thing:

1. NOT engage verses you don't like but then...
2. Proffer OTHER verses more amenable (or so you think!) to your cause. :rolleyes:

Seems like maybe God offers grace to all, not to just a randomly chosen few. Those who receive it in vain become the reason it did them no good, which makes the system FAIR. Your version has God not even OFFERING grace to most people, based on the lame "I won't even offer grace to many and the reason is because I said so." Lame.

LOL. Your argument is with Paul, dude. What more can I say? Let's see you ENGAGE ROMANS 9, dude. :rolleyes:

nrajeff

03-05-2010, 10:00 AM

God is not being unfair in the slightest.

----So all your Cram buddies (and probably some here) who have said "God ISN'T fair, and you should be grateful that He isn't"----you're saying those pals of yours are wrong? Or lying?

nrajeff

03-05-2010, 10:26 AM

Ahhh. Good ol' fashioned fleshy reasoning, jeff,
--It's called "God-given common sense," actually, and you should try it sometime.

and actually demonstrates you have no idea what "grace" or "mercy" mean.
--I know what they mean--they mean that a wise and righteous and MERCIFUL judge considers the mitigating, extenuating circumstances in each case and dispenses mercy accordingly. YOUR God, in contrast, says "Person A, you go to hell. Person B, you go to heaven, even though you did nothing different from what Person A did." That is the epitome of unfairness, immaturity, and capriciousness.

Not if ALL the children were "guilty" of death, jeff. This is WHY your ****ogy FAILS, dude. You keep thinking people are all "innocent", so therefore if some are spared and others are not, God's NOT FAIR.

---I will be happy to put your conjecture up against what Charles Spurgeon, the Prince of Pastors, said about it:

Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, "You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush." We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God.

http://www.ondoctrine.com/2spu0108.htm

James Banta

03-05-2010, 11:57 AM

----So all your Cram buddies (and probably some here) who have said "God ISN'T fair, and you should be grateful that He isn't"----you're saying those pals of yours are wrong? Or lying?

OUT OF CONTEXT.. They like I would say "thank God He doesn't give me what is fair. To be fair and just I deserve the Lake of Fire.. All men do.. So God did what wasn't fair at all. He came and took my punishment. As for God being 100% true to His word.. He can be nothing else.. IHS jim

Father_JD

03-05-2010, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
Ahhh. Good ol' fashioned fleshy reasoning, jeff,

--It's called "God-given common sense," actually, and you should try it sometime.

"Common" sense is not to be equated with GOD'S SENSE, jeff. ;)

Quote:
and actually demonstrates you have no idea what "grace" or "mercy" mean.

--I know what they mean--they mean that a wise and righteous and MERCIFUL judge considers the mitigating, extenuating circumstances in each case and dispenses mercy accordingly. YOUR God, in contrast, says "Person A, you go to hell. Person B, you go to heaven, even though you did nothing different from what Person A did." That is the epitome of unfairness, immaturity, and capriciousness.

Did you ever bother to exegete Romans 9, jeff? I don't think you've given Paul's words a moments worth of consideration. WHY is this? God decrees JUSTICE for some, MERCY AND GRACE for others. It's UNFAIR according to YOU because you STILL do NOT understand that if GRACE and MERCY are OWED, they're no longer "grace" and "mercy". God HAS His REASONS as to why He chooses some for life, and others He p***es over.

Quote:
Not if ALL the children were "guilty" of death, jeff. This is WHY your ****ogy FAILS, dude. You keep thinking people are all "innocent", so therefore if some are spared and others are not, God's NOT FAIR.

---I will be happy to put your conjecture up against what Charles Spurgeon, the Prince of Pastors, said about it:

Dr. Gill, who has been looked upon in late times as being a very standard of Calvinism, not to say of ultra-Calvinism, himself never hints for a moment the supposition that any infant has perished, but affirms of it that it is a dark and mysterious subject, but that it is his belief, and he thinks he has Scripture to warrant it, that they who have fallen asleep in infancy have not perished, but have been numbered with the chosen of God, and so have entered into eternal rest. We have never taught the contrary, and when the charge is brought, I repudiate it and say, "You may have said so, we never did, and you know we never did. If you dare to repeat the slander again, let the lie stand in scarlet on your very cheek if you be capable of a blush." We have never dreamed of such a thing. With very few and rare exceptions, so rare that I never heard of them except from the lips of slanderers, we have never imagined that infants dying as infants have perished, but we have believed that they enter into the paradise of God.

Spurgeon's remarks do NOT mitigate the FACT that even newborns are BORN IN SIN, jeff. You can't grasp this reality because of your steadfast REFUSUAL to acknowledge that pesky doctrine called, "Original Sin".

I have no doubt that in the case of infants, or small children who DIE, that God, in His mercy "calls them home".

There's NO contradiction between what I've written with Spurgeon's. ;)

nrajeff

03-05-2010, 06:52 PM

"Common" sense is not to be equated with GOD'S SENSE, jeff. ;)
---I tend to agree that if TULIP came from the mind of God, then God's sense and the common sense of fair play, justice, mercy, etc. that He gives to humans don't seem equatable. :)

Did you ever bother to exegete Romans 9, jeff?
---I am getting closer to having the time to go over it and show you how wrong your understanding of it is.

God decrees JUSTICE for some, MERCY AND GRACE for others.
--Actually, I think He decrees justice for ALL, like the Pledge of Allegiance says. And mercy to all whose situations merit mercy. Like the retarded, the abused, etc. who don't really know right from wrong in some of the choices they make. You REALLY need to embrace the more-merciful God that I believe in. Less cognitive dissonance, since in our theology there is no contradiction between what we SAY about God being merciful, and what we BELIEVE as far as how He decides who gets saved and who does not. You need no longer believe in the Powerball Lottery of Salvation.

God HAS His REASONS as to why He chooses some for life, and others He p***es over.
--If they were FAIR reasons, I'd think you'd be able to say so. But you can't because your Dante- and Edwards-era "traditional" soteriology has no answer except "The ****ed go to hell for doing nothing different than the saved do for some reason that we HOPE is fair...somehow...although it makes no sense and defies all the rules of fairness....God SAID SO and that better be good enough of an explanation for you or you're not a Christian!"

You keep thinking people are all "innocent", so therefore if some are spared and others are not, God's NOT FAIR.
---Straw Man #5. I have NEVER said that all people are innocent, or that people are all innocent. But if you don't think that SOME people are innocent, then I pity you and I pity the Episcopalians you counsel.

"Father, I had a miscarriage last week, and I'm overcome with grief. Can you give me some words of consolation and re***urance that I will see my baby in the hereafter?"

"Well, your baby was not innocent, I can tell you that much, so there's a good chance it's in hell right now, since only a chosen few there be that make it to heaven. But YOU are a Christian, right? You believe in Trinitarianism and TULIP? Then YOU'RE going to heaven, guaranteed, so don't worry about whether your baby was predestinated for hell or heaven. You won't even have any memories of that baby in heaven, so it'll all be cool."

"But Father! What sins did my baby commit? What sins was she even ABLE to have committed!?"

"Um, well, er, uh...she, like all baby mammals, wanted to live, right?"

"Yes, but I don't see how.."

"The sin of SELFISHNESS! There ya go! Your baby was as much a sinner as Osama and Obama, because if you've committed ONE sin, you're guilty of ALL!"

"Um, Father, I think I will start attending another church, starting now. Someplace that teaches a God of REAL fairness and mercy."

"But why? I can't imagine why you'd have any problem with true Christian, Biblical doctrine, right outta the Bible! You must never have been a real Christian."

stemelbow

03-06-2010, 08:04 AM

I really should not be surprised there has not been a response to this. A self existent God is beyond the comprehension of most LDS. Somehow in LDS circles there are eternal principles, but no eternal god.

A self-existent God is actually beyond the comprehension of anyone from what I've seen, not just LDS. Most a believer in a "self existent" God does not recognize that believing in such believes in a God who is the author of all evil, as logic would dictate. Its either, believing in a self-existent God requires upon such an one to be the source of all evil, or to believe in a self existent God is to throw logic and reason out the window. Either way, the question of the OP exposes the silliness of mainstreamism.

love,
stem

Billyray

03-06-2010, 08:06 AM

A self-existent God is actually beyond the comprehension of anyone from what I've seen, not just LDS. Most a believer in a "self existent" God does not recognize that believing in such believes in a God who is the author of all evil, as logic would dictate. Its either, believing in a self-existent God requires upon such an one to be the source of all evil, or to believe in a self existent God is to throw logic and reason out the window. Either way, the question of the OP exposes the silliness of mainstreamism.

love,
stem

Then you would have to admit that the LDS god is a perpetuator of evil because he took Satan's intelligence and formed him into a spiritual child knowing full well how he would turn out.

stemelbow

03-06-2010, 08:17 AM

Then you would have to admit that the LDS god is a perpetuator of evil because he took Satan's intelligence and formed him into a spiritual child knowing full well how he would turn out.

JD attempted this, trying to bring down the LDS beliefs with his own-game too. Let's consider your point for a sec...if God to LDS "took Satan's intelligences and formed him into a spirtual child knowing full well how he would turn out" then how can one force upon God the conception of all of Satan's evil deeds and designs? It seems you are attempting to force LDS to arrive at a conclusion what "intelligences" are exactly and how they formed our spirits--neither of which is conclusively known by LDS.

The second problem with your attempt to bring LDS beliefs down with your own (a logical fallacy) is that to LDS Lucifer's rebellion was a repeat or copy of previous rebellions and evils already practiced through eternity. Seeing as they were done for eternity past, your attempted implied conclusion doesn't hold since God to LDS did not conceive of the evils that were practiced for eternity past already.

The third problem you face with your attempt to bring down LDS beliefs with your own is that doing such does not address the problems your belief system has. Its deflection, which most a mainstreamer resorts to when confronted with challenges of his/her faith.

love,
stem

Billyray

03-06-2010, 08:21 AM

if God to LDS "took Satan's intelligences and formed him into a spirtual child knowing full well how he would turn out" then how can one force upon God the conception of all of Satan's evil deeds and designs?
love,
stem

That is simple, because if he is omniscient then he knows what Satan would do before he formed him into a spirit child. Thus knowing full well how he will turn out he still forms him anyway. Thus he is perpetuating evil. Unless of course you say that the LDS god is not in control of who will be formed in the first place i.e. he had no control in the formation of Satan's intelligence into a spiritual child.

nrajeff

03-06-2010, 09:16 AM

Billyray

03-06-2010, 09:22 AM

James Banta

03-06-2010, 09:30 AM

I would rather worship a God who is not absolutely omniscient, omniscient, and sovereign but is absolutely good and fair---than worship a God who IS absolutely omniscient, omniscient, and sovereign, but still creates evil beings and makes unfair judgments.

So you would rather have a God that forces goodness. That will only create other being that have no will of their own.. You want a God of robots. The God of the Bible allows freedom to love Him or turn away from Him. He offerers the choice between life and death and allows men, and angels to choose.. Because God is in the past, present, and the future He knows what will happen, who will choose life and who will choose death.. IHS jim

nrajeff

03-06-2010, 11:18 AM

Jeff, that is what everybody does that follow a false god, they make up what they want in a god rather than follow the one and true living God.

----I suppose that is a true statement, and IMO a good example of this phenonemeon is how post-apostolioc-era Christians made up a god who has multiple personalities and who is vindictive and capricious, i.e. the god of TULIP and Trinitarianism.

nrajeff

03-06-2010, 11:25 AM

So you would rather have a God that forces goodness.
--How on EARTH did you arrive at the conclusion that I said THAT? I said that I would rather worship a God who is GOOD, even if He isn't absolutely omnipotent, omniscient, and sovereign, than worship a God who is the opposite of those things. "Forces goodness"? It's YOUR concept of God who is more like that, forcing some people to be saved, taking people's free will out of the equation, "invading" those who were predestined to be the elect (as some Evangelicals have stated it), etc.

That will only create other being that have no will of their own..You want a God of robots.
---No, YOU want that kind of God, one whose grace is IRRESISTABLE. One who is totally SOVEREIGN, which means that no one else has any input into His decisions. One who creates most people for destruction as vessels of wrath.

The God of the Bible allows freedom to love Him or turn away from Him. He offerers the choice between life and death and allows men, and angels to choose..
---That sounds more like the LDS version of God than the Evangelical version. A fun experiment would be for an LDS person to go over to Carm and post what you have said about God without saying that they are YOUR beliefs, and see how much "That is non-Christian, it's heresy!" replies come from your buddies over there.

Billyray

03-06-2010, 11:45 AM

----I suppose that is a true statement, and IMO a good example of this phenonemeon is how post-apostolioc-era Christians made up a god who has multiple personalities and who is vindictive and capricious, i.e. the god of TULIP and Trinitarianism.

It would be easier to believe in three separate distinct gods (in addition to the many other gods), but because it is easier does not make it correct. The polytheistic view of Mormonism ignores monotheism of the Bible.

James Banta

03-06-2010, 08:17 PM

--How on EARTH did you arrive at the conclusion that I said THAT? I said that I would rather worship a God who is GOOD, even if He isn't absolutely omnipotent, omniscient, and sovereign, than worship a God who is the opposite of those things. "Forces goodness"? It's YOUR concept of God who is more like that, forcing some people to be saved, taking people's free will out of the equation, "invading" those who were predestined to be the elect (as some Evangelicals have stated it), etc.

---No, YOU want that kind of God, one whose grace is IRRESISTABLE. One who is totally SOVEREIGN, which means that no one else has any input into His decisions. One who creates most people for destruction as vessels of wrath.

---That sounds more like the LDS version of God than the Evangelical version. A fun experiment would be for an LDS person to go over to Carm and post what you have said about God without saying that they are YOUR beliefs, and see how much "That is non-Christian, it's heresy!" replies come from your buddies over there.

Unless God in the weakling of mormonism's creation He would have to be the Omnipresent God to be fair in these matters.. That is who the Bible teaches that He is. The Being that is always present everywhere in all time.. IHS jim

nrajeff

03-06-2010, 09:19 PM

Unless God in the weakling of mormonism's creation He would have to be the Omnipresent God to be fair in these matters..
---Not true. For a judge to be fair, he doesn't need to be everywhere simultaneously. He just needs to believe that it's important to treat people fairly, and act on that belief. I don't need to be omnipresent in order to treat each of my kids fairly. All I need to do is to take into account each child's individual circumstances, and not punish him for what he wasn't able to understand or do. In other words, I just need to be understanding and comp***ionate and empathetic. LDS believe that one of the things Jesus learned from His time on Earth as one of us, was empathy for our situation, which makes Him eminently qualified to be a fair judge of us.

stemelbow

03-07-2010, 07:17 AM

That is simple, because if he is omniscient then he knows what Satan would do before he formed him into a spirit child. Thus knowing full well how he will turn out he still forms him anyway. Thus he is perpetuating evil. Unless of course you say that the LDS god is not in control of who will be formed in the first place i.e. he had no control in the formation of Satan's intelligence into a spiritual child.

The whole idea of whether God had control of which individual spirits He formed from intelligences is an interesting piece of speculation. But such is merely speculation at this point. If speculation then your conclusion is hardly provable. So I asked specifically how can evil and its entire conception being within God, for LDS, and you respond saying such can be true because He perpetuated evil, given your speculations as true. If God's forming of satan proved to be a necessity for the rest of His creations, for eternal progression purposes, then your whole point is moot. Yet, what remains a huge problem and handily unaddressed by you is the problem that mainstreamism forces upon God to be the very source of all evil. to use evil for the greater good, is one thing, but to be the very cause of it, as mainstreamism is a wholly other. Reasonably, most would have to agree with that.

love,
stem

James Banta

03-07-2010, 07:33 AM

The whole idea of whether God had control of which individual spirits He formed from intelligences is an interesting piece of speculation. But such is merely speculation at this point. If speculation then your conclusion is hardly provable. So I asked specifically how can evil and its entire conception being within God, for LDS, and you respond saying such can be true because He perpetuated evil, given your speculations as true. If God's forming of satan proved to be a necessity for the rest of His creations, for eternal progression purposes, then your whole point is moot. Yet, what remains a huge problem and handily unaddressed by you is the problem that mainstreamism forces upon God to be the very source of all evil. to use evil for the greater good, is one thing, but to be the very cause of it, as mainstreamism is a wholly other. Reasonably, most would have to agree with that.

love,
stem

By this thesis you Stem would be evil as well.. You have had children and they have proved to be equal in the evil in their hearts as an murderer.. Once more you knew they would be but you brought them into the world anyway.. So are you responsible for their sins or are you merely a accessor after the fact? IHS jim