Question for BrianH

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

You most certainly are IF you really believe that natural elements (like water) have an innate intelligence.
.

No. I'm not an animist or pantheist.

Thanks

[Russianwolfe]

Originally Posted by BrianH

He says "all things were created by him" and explains that means all things in heaven and on earth, all visible and invisible things, all thrones and principlaities (authority and jurisdiction), all powers ...ALL THINGS were created by him and for him and he existed before "ALL THINGS" and it is by HIM that they all consist. What part of ALL THINGS do you not understand? How much more explicit does God need to be?

No one has answered my question about Greek and objects vs. people.

I am not a thing and you are not a thing. We are people. And I wonder if Greek makes that kind of distinction. Does anybody have an answer?

Originally Posted by BrianH

He did. All things means ALL things. And if you think he is lying for saying that God created man, go ahead and make your case.

Its not a matter of God lying, its a matter of understanding the verse correctly. Greek is a very sophisticated language and I wonder if it makes a distinction between people and objects. If it does, then it is not correct to say that this verse says that peole are included in the list of things created in this verse.

Originally Posted by BrianH

A "living thing" is a thing by definition, Marvin and living things would be included by anyone who knows how to read as a subset of the category of "things" and the Bible is explicit in tellin you in perfectly understandable and unequivocal terms that God created "ALL THINGS". Are men not on earth? Are they not visible?

We might be a "thing" in modern English, but no one has answered my question about Greek making a distinction between objects and people.

Originally Posted by BrianH

So you leap from "maybe" Paul didn't mean man or any living thing to "that is not what Paul was saying" in one sentence. That's quite a leap! Suppose you back up and actually show me why we should think that Paul was NOT talking about mankind. Your mere conjecture is insufficient as support for ITSELF.

I am asking but one one seems to know.

Originally Posted by BrianH

Meanwhile, the context here is the book of Colosians in whcih Paul is writing to REFUTE the proto-gnosticism (YOUR theological ancestors) that was developing there at the time. The language he uses here is the same kind of language that the gnostics used to describe the hierarchies of deity and natural powers that they worshipped. That INCLUDED "Gods" and angels and men and natural forces.

When Paul says "ALL things", I see no reason to think he means "SOME things". Now ...if you would like to dispute that, suppose you begin by telling me what Paul SHOULD HAVE said in order to convey the idea of "ALL things" since the words "ALL things" seem indadequate to that task for you.

No conclusion can be reached until my question is answered.

Marvin

[BrianH]

No one has answered my question about Greek and objects vs. people.

I am not a thing and you are not a thing. We are people. And I wonder if Greek makes that kind of distinction. Does anybody have an answer?

First of all this is just dishonest. You did not ask any questions about Greek objects vs. people.

HERE is the complete text from the post to which I was responding:

Why when Paul said this does he only mention things that have no being? If he meant to say that God created man, why didn't he list that as well. Seems that if you examine this in context with the whole verse, then the omission of man and any other living thing becames a big hole in the argument that Paul meant to include man. Maybe Paul didn't mean man or any living thing. Even though God did create them, it looks like if you use this to say that God created man, that is not what Paul was saying. Something to think about.

...Nothing about "Greek" or "objects vs. people" here. You are just moving the goal post as Mormons are wot to do.

Secondly, people ARE "things" as EVEN YOU just said above; people are "living things". That SHOULD be obvious, so your attempt to hide your inability to deal with the fact that Paul explicitly refutes you behind the transparent scrim of such an equivocation is as obvious a trick as it is anemic as an excuse for not simply acknowledging the truth of God's word here.

And third, yes we have abundant lexical authority to answer your question and it is presented below.

Its not a matter of God lying, its a matter of understanding the verse correctly. Greek is a very sophisticated language and I wonder if it makes a distinction between people and objects. If it does, then it is not correct to say that this verse says that peole are included in the list of things created in this verse.

Before you presume to tell me that this language does not allow for the fact that God said through Paul that he created all things that are on earth and in heaven, visible and invisible, please cite your credentials in Koine Greek. Otherwise, your "wondering" here is not an argument and it is obvious that you are simply avoiding the clear intent of the inspired author as a desperate means of avoiding the fact that he has clearly refuted a fundamental tenet of your religion (the idea that God did NOT create anything but especially did not create people whom you have not learned to distinguish from "Gods").

I am asking but one one seems to know.

If you were asking, then why did you end with the declaration that "that is not what Paul was saying". That does not sound like a question. And if you ARE asking a question, you should know that you cannot use a question to refute a position.

No conclusion can be reached until my question is answered.

Wrong. Your question PRESUMES its own premise. You and I both know that you will never accept ANY answer that refutes what you have been told to "think" by your cult leaders. Here, watch this ...You presume to question the Greek here? You think that somehow Paul did NOT mean to tell you that God created ALL things, to include people? Okay, I will show you supreme grammatical authority that proves that he DID, and you will automatically reject it just as you have been trained to do, (even after that is exactly what I have told you you will do)...

Below is A.T. Robertson's commentary on Col 1:16. A.T. Robertson is among the supreme authorities on Koine Greek grammar and his books form a significant portion of the bookshelves of all other Koine scholars.

All things (ta panta). The universe as in Romans 11:35, a well-known philosophical phrase. It is repeated at the end of the verse. In him were created (en autwi ektisqh). Paul now gives the reason (oti, for) for the primacy of Christ in the work of creation (Romans 16). It is the constative aorist p***ive indicative ektisqh (from ktizw, old verb, to found, to create (Romans 1:25). This central activity of Christ in the work of creation is presented also in John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2 and is a complete denial of the Gnostic philosophy. The whole of creative activity is summed up in Christ including the angels in heaven and everything on earth. God wrought through "the Son of his love." All earthly dignities are included. Have been created (ektistai). Perfect p***ive indicative of ktizw, "stand created," "remain created." The permanence of the universe rests, then, on Christ far more than on gravity. It is a Christo-centric universe. Through him (di autou). As the intermediate and sustaining agent. He had already used en autwi (in him) as the sphere of activity. And unto him (kai eiß auton). This is the only remaining step to take and Paul takes it (1 Corinthians 15:28) See Ephesians 1:10 for similar use of en autwi of Christ and in Colossians 1:19; Colossians 20 again we have en autwi, di autou, eiß auton used of Christ. See Hebrews 2:10 for di on (because of whom) and di ou (by means of whom) applied to God concerning the universe (ta panta). In Romans 11:35 we find ex autou kai di autou kai eiß auton ta panta referring to God. But Paul does not use ex in this connection of Christ, but only en, dia, and eiß. See the same distinction preserved in 1 Corinthians 8:6 (ex of God, dia, of Christ).

Now did Paul mean to explain that God created all things (ALL things, the UNIVERSE and all that it contains) or not?

If you would like to dispute Dr. Robertson's claim that the grammar fully supports the otherwise obvious fact that Paul indeed has told you that God created "ALL THINGS", including all LIVING things (which necessarily includes mankind) then again, I request that you first cite your own Koine Greek credentials so that I can at least have some kind of reason to think that you are not just brushing the facts aside in order to pretend that your ignoranc e of this language somehow gives you superior insight into its meanings.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

No. I'm not an animist or pantheist.

If you believe what you said about elements being sufficiently conscious to hear and obey commands, you ARE an animist or a pantheist BY DEFINITION, Fig. That is what animists and/or pantheists believe and in fact it is this very belief that DEFINES their view.

You can deny it all you like, but if you really DO "think" that water (per your example) can actually hear and obey commands, then you are DEMONSTRATING by that belief that you ARE a pantheist or an animist.

OTH, if you are NOT a pantheist or an animist, then you do NOT believe your own ***ertion that the elements hear and obey commands. And if YOU do not believe your own ***ertion, I see no reason why I should either.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

If you believe what you said about elements being sufficiently conscious to hear and obey commands, you ARE an animist or a pantheist BY DEFINITION, Fig.

.

Call me what you like. Chances are, you'll be wrong, but it might make you feel smart.

My beliefs do not conform with what animists or pantheists believe.

And you really don't care anyway.

Thanks.

[BrianH]

Call me what you like. Chances are, you'll be wrong, but it might make you feel smart.

My beliefs do not conform with what animists or pantheists believe.

And you really don't care anyway.

I care about getting you to expose the ignoranc e and duplicity requried of Mormons. The fact is, deny it as you like, the attribution of intelligence to matter is the very definition of animism and other supers***ions. This is not about me calling you anythying. It is about the FACT that you have just demosntrated an animistic/pantheistic claim and now you are denying it.

-BH

.

[nrajeff]

I have nothing against animism. If the Japanese want to make cartoons, what's the big deal?

[BrianH]

Yeah, but they are really BAD cartoons.

Gimme Bugs Bunny and the Warner Bros crowd any day.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

I care about getting you to expose the ignoranc e and duplicity requried of Mormons.

No. You really don't. I think you are just bored with your life.

Originally Posted by BrianH

The fact is, deny it as you like, the attribution of intelligence to matter is the very definition of animism and other supers***ions.

No, you only have a small portion of the facts.

Originally Posted by BrianH

This is not about me calling you anythying. It is about the FACT that you have just demosntrated an animistic/pantheistic claim and now you are denying it.

No. I haven't. Look it up, and I will show you the differences if you are really interested. There is no philosophical "ISM" that accurately describes what LDS believe.

[James Banta]

Other than polytheism.. I have shown you that before:

Polytheism:
pol⋅y⋅the⋅ism  –noun the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.

This does not require the worship of multiple gods just the belief that there are more than one or many gods.. This describes the view of divine beings I was taught as a mormon.. This describes the teaching of Joseph Smith in his Sermon on Plurality of Gods:

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three cons***ute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it! (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479)

By your prophets own words mormonism matches up with the definition of polytheism.. IHS jim

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Other than polytheism.. I have shown you that before:

Polytheism:
pol⋅y⋅the⋅ism  –noun the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.

This does not require the worship of multiple gods just the belief that there are more than one or many gods.. This describes the view of divine beings I was taught as a mormon.. This describes the teaching of Joseph Smith in his Sermon on Plurality of Gods:

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three cons***ute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it! (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473-479)

By your prophets own words mormonism matches up with the definition of polytheism.. IHS jim

Say whatever makes you feel secure and good about yourself, and have a good day.

We believe in 3 Gods (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), but we worship the Father. If that's what everyone in the world understands by the term polytheism, as it pertains to the LDS Church, then fine. But until then, I will continue to set people straight on the matter. Even if it upsets you in the process. Sorry.

Thanks.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

We believe in 3 Gods (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), but we worship the Father.

---And, to elaborate, we believe in 3 distinct Persons who, while each is a deity in His own right, are, in a way--a metaphorical way--ONE GOD. Just like the 1st-century Christians believed, and just like Jesus taught. If some modern "traditional" Christians have a problem with that doctrine, that's too bad.

[theway]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---And, to elaborate, we believe in 3 distinct Persons who, while each is a deity in His own right, are, in a way--a metaphorical way--ONE GOD. Just like the 1st-century Christians believed, and just like Jesus taught. If some modern "traditional" Christians have a problem with that doctrine, that's too bad.

The problem as I see it, is that we are lacking a fancy term for this “3 Gods which are one” concept other than Polytheism, something such as “The Trinity”. This way when someone calls you a Polytheist, you only need to say “No I’m not, I’m a Trinitarian” as though this somehow solves the problem.

[BrianH]

No. You really don't. I think you are just bored with your life.

I know your religion has you thinking you are a "God", Fig ...but believe it or not, you aren't. And you are in no position to dictate to me what I care about.

No, you only have a small portion of the facts.

I have every necessary and sufficient fact - the DEFINITION of animism (and to a lesser degree pantheism) is the belief that natrual elements posess intelligence. At this point you have offered exactly no facts to sustain your empty ***ertions.

No. I haven't. Look it up, and I will show you the differences if you are really interested. There is no philosophical "ISM" that accurately describes what LDS believe.

If you believe that water is conscious and can obey verbal commands, you believe in animISM by definition. Try as you might to run from the FACTS, Fig ...all you do is demosntrate your state of denial in the process.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

I know your religion has you thinking you are a "God", Fig ...but believe it or not, you aren't. And you are in no position to dictate to me what I care about.

Extremely inaccurate statement on your part. But apparently you don't care.

Originally Posted by BrianH

I have every necessary and sufficient fact - the DEFINITION of animism (and to a lesser degree pantheism) is the belief that natrual elements posess intelligence. At this point you have offered exactly no facts to sustain your empty ***ertions.

If you really care about showing how smart you are, and how wrong I am, then you will produce the definitions of animism and pantheism here so we can evaluate them in light of what I actually believe.

Originally Posted by BrianH

If you believe that water is conscious and can obey verbal commands, you believe in animISM by definition. Try as you might to run from the FACTS, Fig ...all you do is demosntrate your state of denial in the process.
-BH
.

Did I ever say that the water was conscious?

You really don't care, apparently.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---And, to elaborate, we believe in 3 distinct Persons who, while each is a deity in His own right, are, in a way--a metaphorical way--ONE GOD. Just like the 1st-century Christians believed, and just like Jesus taught. If some modern "traditional" Christians have a problem with that doctrine, that's too bad.

Thanks, Jeff.

I'm trying to be as simple as possible in my answers, but sometimes I forget about the lurkers who may actually appreciate and be prepared for more information.

[BrianH]

Extremely inaccurate statement on your part. But apparently you don't care.

No its quite accurate and you prove it every time you presume to dictate to me what I care about.

If you really care about showing how smart you are, and how wrong I am, then you will produce the definitions of animism and pantheism here so we can evaluate them in light of what I actually believe.

Perhpaps you need to learn how to read and see for yourself that what I said I care about is getting YOU to demonstrate the duplicity required to be a Mormon.

You believe water has a mind? ...You are supers***ious. Water has no intelligence, Fig. Its ...water.

Did I ever say that the water was conscious?

You said it possessed intelligence. Inanimate objects that are not conscious do not possess intelligence.

TRY to connect with reality, Fig.

-BH

.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by BrianH

You believe water has a mind? ...You are supers***ious. Water has no intelligence, Fig. Its ...water.

I never said water has a mind. You are resorting to your bag of old tricks again.

I believe the elements respond on their own to commands from God. Is that necessarily "intelligence" as you narrowly define the word? Probably not.

You never answered: Who was Jesus speaking to when He said "Peace, be still"?

If you really care about exposing me, then you will answer.

Thanks.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Yea. I believe the trees have intelligence. That one's even more obvious.

But I'm not a pantheist.

Thanks.

They do NOT have "intelligence", Fig...did JS or some other Mormon "prophet" venture to say they did??

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

They do NOT have "intelligence", Fig...did JS or some other Mormon "prophet" venture to say they did??

Maybe you could offer your official Christian opinion on
Who was Jesus speaking to when He said "Peace, be still"?

Or why did Jesus say in Matt. 17:20 :
20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

[akaSeerone]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Maybe you could offer your official Christian opinion on
Who was Jesus speaking to when He said "Peace, be still"?

Or why did Jesus say in Matt. 17:20 :
20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

What is this "official Christian opinion" malarkey?

Christians do not offer "opinion." We give Bible as in:

Jesus said.....

John 6:63

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

He simply has power over matter.

Matter does not need intelligence to obey Jesus, He simply speaks and what He speaks comes to p***....As in "LIGHT BE."...Amen

After all he created it from nothing by just speaking it into existence.

Andy

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

What is this "official Christian opinion" malarkey?

Christians do not offer "opinion." We give Bible as in:

Jesus said.....

John 6:63

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

He simply has power over matter.

Matter does not need intelligence to obey Jesus, He simply speaks and what He speaks comes to p***....As in "LIGHT BE."...Amen

After all he created it from nothing by just speaking it into existence.

Andy

You just gave me an opinion. Is this your OFFICIAL opinion?

Now tell me what is the official Bible position on who Jesus was speaking to when he said "Peace, be still"

Who was Jesus speaking to when He said "Peace, be still"?

Or why Jesus would tell people that they can speak to mountains to remove themselves.

If your official opinion holds true, then shouldn't people be asking God to tell the mountains to remove themselves?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BrianH

Yeah, but they are really BAD cartoons.

Gimme Bugs Bunny and the Warner Bros crowd any day.

-BH

.

Did you take my space Modulator? Bests there ever were!! IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

Say whatever makes you feel secure and good about yourself, and have a good day.

We believe in 3 Gods (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), but we worship the Father. If that's what everyone in the world understands by the term polytheism, as it pertains to the LDS Church, then fine. But until then, I will continue to set people straight on the matter. Even if it upsets you in the process. Sorry.

Thanks.

By your own words you confess to being a polytheist.. It doesn't matter how many Gods you worship believing in more than one is enough to make you a polytheist.. You #1 creedal statement then is a half truth.. You believe in God the eternal Father and in His Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost.. This gives the impression that you believe not just that each of these Persons are God but that you are trinitarian of doctrine.. This is a deception for those that don't know you..

Your doctrine is a denial of the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.. You do understand the terrible consequences of denying the Holy Spirit don't you? I keep limiting this to you because I don't believe this denial is the doctrine of the LDS church.. This is your personal prevision. Most mormons I talk with believe Jesus to be a God and the Holy Spirit to be a God.. They are also polytheists but they don't back away from the divinity of Jesus or the Holy Spirit.. IHS jim

[BrianH]

I never said water has a mind. You are resorting to your bag of old tricks again.

Bag of tricks? You're the one with all the tricks Fig: You said water had intelligence. Intelligence requires a mind.

I believe the elements respond on their own to commands from God. Is that necessarily "intelligence" as you narrowly define the word? Probably not.

You are the one redefining words here, Fig. Wake up supers***ion boy. Water is not intelligent. Its WATER.

You never answered: Who was Jesus speaking to when He said "Peace, be still"?

The Sea of Gallilee. And according you to, that lake is "intelligent".

LOL!!

You poor guy.

-BH

.