Another EV dichotomy problem.

[Vance]

I don't have to refute your red herring.

It isn't a red herring, it is the argument.

Since the overwhelming majority who read the biblical scriptures come away with the notion that there is only One God manifest in Three Persons . . .

Well, not exactly. This statement is nearly correct when the proper definition of "person" is used. The problem is that Creedal Christians insist on a "special pleading" definition of person, which isn't really a person but rather more like a personality.

Here is the 1828 Websters definition of "person" which I have posted before.

PERSON, n. per'sn. [L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the state.]

1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.

A person is a thinking intelligent being.

2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them.

A zeal for persons is far more easy to be perverted, than a zeal for things.

3. A human being, considered with respect to the living body or corporeal existence only. The form of her person is elegant.

You'll find her person difficult to gain.

The rebels maintained the fight for a small time, and for their persons showed no want of courage.

4. A human being, indefinitely; one; a man. Let a person's attainments be never so great, he should remember he is frail and imperfect.

5. A human being represented in dialogue, fiction, or on the state; character. A player appears in the person of king Lear.

These tables, Cicero pronounced under the person of Crassus, were of more use and authority than all the books of the philosophers.

6. Character of office.

How different is the same man from himself, as he sustains the person of a magistrate and that of a friend.

7. In grammar, the nominative to a verb; the agent that performs or the patient that suffers any thing affirmed by a verb; as, I write; he is smitten; she is beloved; the rain descends in torrents. I, thou or you, he, she or it, are called the first, second and third persons. Hence we apply the word person to the termination or modified form of the verb used in connection with the persons; as the first or the third person of the verb; the verb is in the second person.

8. In law, an artificial person, is a corporation or body politic.

In person, by one's self; with bodily presence; not be representative.

The king in person visits all around.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

Nobody's touched the eternal punishment for a created creature argument. I agree it's not exactly "fair" to say the least.

"OK- here's the good news! You have eternal life now! Here's the bad- you get to spend it in hell!!"

And all for the crime of never hearing the name of Jesus Christ because you were born in China in 3000 BC?

Sounds a tad shaky to me.

It's not the evangelical position. You are knocking down a straw man.

No one goes to hell "for the crime of never hearing the name of Jesus Christ." If they go to hell, they go to hell because they are sinners deserving of God's wrath.

Your assumption is that those people in ancient China were good, righteous folk who don't deserve hell. Unfortunately, they deserve hell just as much as I do. When God saves someone from hell, that is not God giving them justice; it is God giving them mercy. And he is obligated to no one to give anyone mercy.

[Vance]

I can't comprehend what it means to have existed from all eternity backwards. If God can manifest in our realm as an angel, a pillar of fire, a cloud, a burning bush, talking through a donkey, etc.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Well, how can the Father have a "bosom" if He is only a spirit?

You're kidding, right?

Do you take all of the anthropomorphic language of the Bible literally, or only the parts you like?

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

You're kidding, right?

Do you take all of the anthropomorphic language of the Bible literally, or only the parts you like?

Do you take all of the anthropomorphic language of the Bible figuratively, or only the parts you like?

[stemelbow]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

It's not the evangelical position. You are knocking down a straw man.

No one goes to hell "for the crime of never hearing the name of Jesus Christ." If they go to hell, they go to hell because they are sinners deserving of God's wrath.

Your assumption is that those people in ancient China were good, righteous folk who don't deserve hell. Unfortunately, they deserve hell just as much as I do. When God saves someone from hell, that is not God giving them justice; it is God giving them mercy. And he is obligated to no one to give anyone mercy.

I'm glad we don't have this as part of our faith. I simply wouldn't want to live with myself.

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

Which of the following statements do you reject?

• People of all times and places in human history, whether they have heard of Jesus or not, are sinners.
• All sinners deserve God's wrath.
• Salvation is a gift of mercy, not something any sinner deserves.

I'm glad we don't have this as part of our faith. I simply wouldn't want to live with myself.

[ElfLord]

stem,

Which of the following statements do you reject?

• People of all times and places in human history, whether they have heard of Jesus or not, are sinners.
• All sinners deserve God's wrath.
• Salvation is a gift of mercy, not something any sinner deserves.

You seem to forget Rob... where there is no law there is no transgression.

Paul quoting David...

"Blessed is the man for whom God will not impute sin"

Further...

2 Corinthians 5:19

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

God can't hold the China mans sins against him without him ever hearing about Jesus Christ. Otherwise he is an unjust Judge.

[stemelbow]

stem,

Which of the following statements do you reject?

• People of all times and places in human history, whether they have heard of Jesus or not, are sinners.
• All sinners deserve God's wrath.
• Salvation is a gift of mercy, not something any sinner deserves.

As put here, I don't take issue with the statements. It has more to do with the implication behind all sinners deserving God's wrath. As if those who never had a chance to be redeemed deserve it and that means God's mercy shall somehow skip them. You see...the "never had a chance" doesn't come into play in your belief system because it must be assumed/explained that none of us have a chance, per se, other than God extending that chance to certain 'randomly' selected folks. It flies in the face of LDS understanding of God providing the same mercy to all (which without question, in my mind, is so far superior to the general evangelical position). Choice is far more central to LDS belief than any other, which is beautiful.

love,

stem

[Hick Preacher]

Whatever that is supposed to mean. Call it substance or being it is all just jibberish.

In fact it is what Nietzsche correctly pointed out as what he called a "virtus dormitiva" which you can google if you like.

When you can't explain something, you dream up a vague new word for why it works. Why do sleeping pills work? "Because they have the faculty of producing sleep".

Of course, here the word "faculty" explains nothing! It is mumbo-jumbo!

Why is the Trinity one? Because they are one in "being"! They have a "nature" of being one

Same thing! No one can define "being" properly, but it sounds good.

I noted this ' being' idea because D&C 20 also used the term 'being'.

The Trinity is not a definition for the Godhead. Rather it is an indicator that an unusual relationship exists between the Three persons.

As I have posted before, the LDS Church used the term 'Trinity' to describe the Godhead up until the mid-1970s.

Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.61

Now I repeat-the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, he constitutes the third person in the Trinity, the Godhead.

[jmordecai]

Do you take all of the anthropomorphic language of the Bible figuratively, or only the parts you like?

By Vance's standard, God must be a bird:

Psalm 36:7

How precious is Your loving kindness, O God! And the children of men take refuge in the shadow of Your wings.

[ELF1024]

By Vance's standard, God must be a bird:

Psalm 36:7

How precious is Your loving kindness, O God! And the children of men take refuge in the shadow of Your wings.

Luke 3:22

And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

[TAO]

Reread my statement, I don't regard any proprietary LDS scriptures as authoritative. Your insistence that I accept or deny all of Joseph Smith's statements is illogical. If Joseph Smith said 2+2=4 and I agree with it doesn't mean that I have to accept all he says or else deny that 2+2=4.

Well then let me ask, did Joseph translate the plates correctly or not? Was he right on such, was he right also on the JST, was he right also on the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham? Where and why do you draw the line for what you believe? If I can't understand what you accept as scripture, I can't show you why I believe the way I do.

Past prophets considered the Journal of Discourses part of the Standard Works.

Call for Reference.

The Lectures of Faith were LDS canon for 86 years, and removed in from the D&C in 1921.

Indeed it was.

The D&C has suffered numerous edits, additions and omissions.

So have all the books. Again, I am asking, what makes the first version any better than the last, if they were all done with the spirit of revelation?

The Shema is just that: Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah.

Call for Proof.

I don't have to prove your assumptions.

Your not proving my assumption. Your proving that your statement is correct; I haven't 't accepted it on face value, so you will have to do more than that. You need to prove your statement before it is accepted, as I disagree with it.

Besides, your question skirts the bigger theological issue pertaining to polytheism

[jmordecai]

Well then let me ask, did Joseph translate the plates correctly or not? Was he right on such, was he right also on the JST, was he right also on the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham? Where and why do you draw the line for what you believe? If I can't understand what you accept as scripture, I can't show you why I believe the way I do.

I regard the books of the Old and New Testaments as scripture.

Call for Reference.

The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number as it comes forth.

President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Vol. 8

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.

President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 13:95

Call for Proof.

sme yvral yhwh alhynw yhwh axd

[jmordecai]

Vance

Well, not exactly. This statement is nearly correct when the proper definition of "person" is used. The problem is that Creedal Christians insist on a "special pleading" definition of person, which isn't really a person but rather more like a personality

Whatever you want to call it: person, personality, being, theophany, to label the manifestations of God is not the issue I'm arguing.

Asserting that the manifestations require distinct and separate gods is the issue, which violates the Shema.

And I see you are using the fallacy of "Appeal to Popularity" to support it.

When everyone interprets red to mean stop, and you interpret red to mean go... likewise, when the 3 billion of the Abrahamic faiths come away with an interpretation of monotheism, and here comes Mormonism with its polytheism... maybe some introspection is in order.

So that is what you envision when you think about the ontology of God? Really?

My point is an example. When we see two intelligences (Siamese twins) posses the same physical body... or multiple personalities within one person... the argument that God cannot express himself in multiple manifestations doesn't hold water when we see exceptions in our own human domain.

You have NO CLUE,

BUT . . .

Mormons are wrong.

I don't need to fully comprehend the complexities of God to recognize false doctrine.

But you DO PRESUME that God must be one being, or one essence or one substance.

I glean from the prophets and apostles of biblical times, (and Christ himself) that God is One God.

I reject the notion that God is three gods.

Well, how can the Father have a "bosom" if He is only a spirit?

If you want to be literal, how does a person come from a man's bosom?

So, you should ignore "tradition"al orthodoxy and study the words of Christ and His prophets.

Why don't you address the second half of the scripture.

The point is that you did exactly what you said you didn't. You messed with the first and great commandment, which is "thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment"

and,

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

and,

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind;

Your point is still lost on me.

I do love god... he is a golden calf. So I'm all good.

[mfbukowski]

When it comes to defining God, I don't impose upon him my understanding of what constitutes a being. I accept the notion that there is only One God and He is a spirit, but I can't comprehend what it means to transcend knowledge, time, space and matter. I can't comprehend what it means to have existed from all eternity backwards. If God can manifest in our realm as an angel, a pillar of fire, a cloud, a burning bush, talking through a donkey, etc.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

It's not the evangelical position. You are knocking down a straw man.

No one goes to hell "for the crime of never hearing the name of Jesus Christ." If they go to hell, they go to hell because they are sinners deserving of God's wrath.

Your assumption is that those people in ancient China were good, righteous folk who don't deserve hell. Unfortunately, they deserve hell just as much as I do. When God saves someone from hell, that is not God giving them justice; it is God giving them mercy. And he is obligated to no one to give anyone mercy.

I just think it is sad to think that God would create children just to send to hell because of "original sin"- and because we are all sinners. It isn't as if we had a choice in the matter. There are none sinless but Jesus, true.

But does anyone deserve hell because God made them that way? In a court of law, those who "cannot do otherwise" are usually found innocent because they are mentally incompetent, insane, or in some way unaccountable. So are our human judges more just than your god?

Tigers are not judged to be "murderers" and punished for killing, because killing is their nature. And so sin our nature, but we get to go to hell for eternity for committing it, even though we cannot do otherwise. That is not justice, and my God would not do that.

I am surprised you did not have any comments on the Social Trinity posts I made.

[mfbukowski]

I noted this ' being' idea because D&C 20 also used the term 'being'.

The Trinity is not a definition for the Godhead. Rather it is an indicator that an unusual relationship exists between the Three persons.

As I have posted before, the LDS Church used the term 'Trinity' to describe the Godhead up until the mid-1970s.

Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, p.61

And this is relevant because....?

Meaning is made by the context in which words are used. In an LDS context, those words have a different meaning than they do in an EV or Catholic context. So what? Do you want to argue about what a "Bishop" is? What is the point of arguing about words?

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure I understand your position. You seem to agree with me that God is not obliged to provide everyone with mercy, and at the same time you seem to maintain that it would be unworthy of God not to provide mercy to everyone. The latter affirmation seems to have crowded out the former affirmation.

As put here, I don't take issue with the statements. It has more to do with the implication behind all sinners deserving God's wrath. As if those who never had a chance to be redeemed deserve it and that means God's mercy shall somehow skip them. You see...the "never had a chance" doesn't come into play in your belief system because it must be assumed/explained that none of us have a chance, per se, other than God extending that chance to certain 'randomly' selected folks. It flies in the face of LDS understanding of God providing the same mercy to all (which without question, in my mind, is so far superior to the general evangelical position). Choice is far more central to LDS belief than any other, which is beautiful.

love,

stem

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

We all have a choice to give into our fallen sinful disposition or not to do so. Sin is a choice; the fact that we are predisposed because of the corruption of the Fall to make the wrong choice does not negate the fact that it is a choice. God did not make people sinners; that was something that resulted from the first human beings' choice. Sin is not "our nature" in the same way as eating meat is in a tiger's nature, because sin is a spiritual/moral disorder.

To be mentally incompetent is a justifiable excuse for bad bahavior, but being sinful by disposition is not an excuse. For example, most men are predisposed to seek adulterous relationships with women other than their wives, but that isn't a legitimate excuse for doing so.

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to respond to all of the interesting and important issues here.

I just think it is sad to think that God would create children just to send to hell because of "original sin"- and because we are all sinners. It isn't as if we had a choice in the matter. There are none sinless but Jesus, true.

But does anyone deserve hell because God made them that way? In a court of law, those who "cannot do otherwise" are usually found innocent because they are mentally incompetent, insane, or in some way unaccountable. So are our human judges more just than your god?

Tigers are not judged to be "murderers" and punished for killing, because killing is their nature. And so sin our nature, but we get to go to hell for eternity for committing it, even though we cannot do otherwise. That is not justice, and my God would not do that.

I am surprised you did not have any comments on the Social Trinity posts I made.

[Rob Bowman]

ElfLord,

You wrote:

You seem to forget Rob... where there is no law there is no transgression.

I haven't forgotten. All people are held accountable to the law of God, including people who lived before Moses and people who live without any knowledge of the Mosaic Law (Rom. 2:12-16; 5:12-14). People die because they are sinners, not because they haven't heard of Jesus Christ.

You wrote:

Paul quoting David...

"Blessed is the man for whom God will not impute sin"

Further...

2 Corinthians 5:19

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

God can't hold the China mans sins against him without him ever hearing about Jesus Christ. Otherwise he is an unjust Judge.

That isn't what 2 Corinthians 5:19 is saying. God's gospel is that people will not have their trespasses imputed to them if they accept "the word of reconciliation." Hence Paul's plea in his next breath, "we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (v. 20). The plea presupposes that people are not automatically reconciled to God through Christ's sacrifice; they must become reconciled by responding in faith to the gospel. And again, God is not obliged to make this merciful provision available to everyone. By definition, mercy goes beyond obligation.

[Vance]

Whatever you want to call it: person, personality, being, theophany, to label the manifestations of God is not the issue I'm arguing.

Asserting that the manifestations require distinct and separate gods is the issue, which violates the Shema.

Nah, it doesn't really violate the Shema. It only violates your MIS-interpretation of the Shema.

Why, exactly, can't Three separate and distinct divine beings/entities make up one God (or Godhead)?

When everyone interprets red to mean stop, and you interpret red to mean go... likewise, when the 3 billion of the Abrahamic faiths come away with an interpretation of monotheism, and here comes Mormonism with its polytheism... maybe some introspection is in order.

And when everyone says that the earth is flat, then what?

And let's be honest about it ok, the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT true monotheism either.

My point is an example. When we see two intelligences (Siamese twins) posses the same physical body... or multiple personalities within one person... the argument that God cannot express himself in multiple manifestations doesn't hold water when we see exceptions in our own human domain.

Ok, so now your God has multiple personality issues. I get it.

I don't need to fully comprehend the complexities of God to recognize false doctrine.

So then you CAN'T claim that we are wrong, then can you.

Oh, yeah, I have heard this explanation before. You don't have a clue about what the truth really is, BUT, you do know that "Marmonz iz wrong".

Something about your argument is unconvincing.

I glean from the prophets and apostles of biblical times, (and Christ himself) that God is One God.

I reject the notion that God is three gods.

You are free to believe what ever you want.

Your point is still lost on me.

No surprise.

I do love god... he is a golden calf. So I'm all good.

I can't help you.

[stemelbow]

stem,

Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure I understand your position. You seem to agree with me that God is not obliged to provide everyone with mercy, and at the same time you seem to maintain that it would be unworthy of God not to provide mercy to everyone. The latter affirmation seems to have crowded out the former affirmation.

Well, yeah...I don't know if God is obligated per se. It does stand to reason that if he is going to start all of this He might as well provide possibility that all can receive His mercy, equally. In essence i thought I was pretty clear--God's mercy if not extended as opportunity to everyone is not a belief I find valuable in the least.

love,

stem

[Vance]

By Vance's standard, God must be a bird:

Psalm 36:7

How precious is Your loving kindness, O God! And the children of men take refuge in the shadow of Your wings.

Do you know what "anthropomorphic" means?

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

You wrote:

Well, yeah...I don't know if God is obligated per se. It does stand to reason that if he is going to start all of this He might as well provide possibility that all can receive His mercy, equally. In essence i thought I was pretty clear--God's mercy if not extended as opportunity to everyone is not a belief I find valuable in the least.

Okay, that's what I thought. Thanks for your patience in grinding through the issue. I don't think you can escape the fact that the logic of your position entails that God is obligated to give everyone an opportunity for mercy. You might find that assumption more to your liking, and I understand that, but truth is not found by searching our feelings for what we find palatable. If God reveals to us that he chooses to show mercy to some but not others (Romans 9:15-18), it won't do us any good to say we don't like that idea. We are in no position to answer back to God (Romans 9:19-20).