Is God unable to create in kind?

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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]

---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]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

---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

Hey Andy, remember this thread?

http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/s...near#post49058

Post #40 was a question. Do you have an answer to the question?


Thanks.

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

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?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

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]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

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

Your twistology is very telling.

Andy

[stemelbow]

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

love,
stem

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---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.

Originally Posted by nrajeff

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]

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]

Originally Posted by MacG

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

MacG

Exactly! Thanks, MacG.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

... 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]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

----- 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]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

-----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]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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]

Originally Posted by Billyray

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]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

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]

Originally Posted by nrajeff

---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]

Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle

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]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

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]

Originally Posted by akaSeerone

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.