e=mc2 Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 Oh WOWIE! David, a terrific Catholic quoting one of our own Mormon apostles to al of us! What a great thread! David you ROCK! Now then you said:Me: I would say that they will become creators like God the Son.A small correction my friend...... it is not "they" but it is "we."
Jersey Girl Posted July 12, 2007 Posted July 12, 2007 Jersey Girl,Caring for God's creation ..Thanks for the exchange of ideas ... it has been fun ... Goodnight Hmmm...I could go about 3 ways with this. Johnny, when you say that your idea is that we'll "care for God's creation" in the enternities, might I ask what "God's creation" means to you?Let me edit here and draw this out further so you can deal with it if you choose to.When you say that we'll care for God's creation, are you thinking/believing in terms of the New Earth only? Would you agree that God's creation includes this universe and OTHER universes?If that seems to make sense to you, do you think it possible that we might (and I realize this is entierly speculation but I'm going with it) be assigned to care for God's creation on other planets (as we know them) in other universes?And if so, could you see how LDS speculate in much the same way that we do? Can you grasp the idea that LDS look at the eternities in such a way as to generate additional Creation Stories? I think there is some room for at least weak consensus there.
johnny Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Doctor Steuss,>> Was there any point in time when the Son of God did not have have the divine nature?Ok. But I must first warn you that my thoughts are at times not in line with LDS thought (and my thoughts are often in a state of flux).>> Was there any point in time when a man did not the divine nature?Yes and no. I believe there are variants of â??divine nature,â? and it can come and go (depending on righteousness/justification/and sanctification). When Iâ??m being a punk; I donâ??t have any divine nature.Your answers helps illustrate the point I am trying to make ... the Son of God is the divine nature, there is never a time when he is not the divine nature ... on the other hand, man can have or not have the divine nature since they are only partakers of the divine nature.
johnny Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Lachoneus,Don't tell me that "omnipotent" means "ruler of all." That is an interpretation, not a definition. The definition of "omnipotent" is "every power." Multiple beings can have every power.Only one being can have the power to be "King of kings" ... After Christ presents to his Father an eternal and universal kingdom [1 Cor 15:24-28] is there a "King of kings" or does everyone have every power?
johnny Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 David Waltz,Me: I would say that they will become creators like God the Son.How can this be ... the Son was "the Word" of God at creation ... will you be like "the Logos" once you are divinized?Me: Once again, in this respect, they will become like God the Son.What exactly do you mean "like God the Son", in the end the Son of God presents to his Father an eternal and universal kingdom.In the ultimate and final sense of the word, there is only one true and living God. He is the Father, the Almighty Elohim, the Supreme Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe.In your view how do the above words of McConkie fit in with today's Mormon teaching that a man can become a Creator like our Heavenly Father?
johnny Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Jersey Girl,Hmmm...I could go about 3 ways with this. Johnny, when you say that your idea is that we'll "care for God's creation" in the enternities, might I ask what "God's creation" means to you?God's creations means the new heaven and new earth that comes at the end.And if so, could you see how LDS speculate in much the same way that we do? Can you grasp the idea that LDS look at the eternities in such a way as to generate additional Creation Stories? Mormon speculation is very different than mine, the Mormon Church teaches we can become a Creator like our Heavenly Father. I don't believe we will be Creating new heavens and new worlds out of nothing like our Heavenly Father did.
Jersey Girl Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Jersey Girl,God's creations means the new heaven and new earth that comes at the end.Mormon speculation is very different than mine, the Mormon Church teaches we can become a Creator like our Heavenly Father. I don't believe we will be Creating new heavens and new worlds out of nothing like our Heavenly Father did.Johnny,In the above you refer to God's creation as the new heaven and the new earth. What about this universe and all other universes? Do you see those as part of God's creation?
johnny Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Jersey Girl,In the above you refer to God's creation as the new heaven and the new earth. What about this universe and all other universes? Do you see those as part of God's creation?The New Testament only speaks of "the new heaven and the new earth" ...
cksalmon Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Johnny,In the above you refer to God's creation as the new heaven and the new earth. What about this universe and all other universes? Do you see those as part of God's creation?Hi JG--This is manifestly not directed toward me, but I'll speak for myself here (and Johnny's Catholic perspective may differ). Caveat emptor.There are no other universes. Phillip K. **** (and all his SF funny business) be damned. This is it. Best.CK "We don't call it the universe for nothin'..." Salmon
cksalmon Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Hi JG--This is manifestly not directed toward me, but I'll speak for myself here (and Johnny's Catholic perspective may differ). Caveat emptor.There are no other universes. Phillip K. **** (and all his SF funny business) be damned. This is it. Best.CK "We don't call it the universe for nothin'..." SalmonAnd the name is D*I*C*K*. He who brought you Blade Runner and Minority Report. CKS
Jersey Girl Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Hi JG--This is manifestly not directed toward me, but I'll speak for myself here (and Johnny's Catholic perspective may differ). Caveat emptor.There are no other universes. Phillip K. **** (and all his SF funny business) be damned. This is it. Best.CK "We don't call it the universe for nothin'..." SalmonGeez! I just asked a darn question!
cksalmon Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Geez! I just asked a darn question!I guess I just don't, all my sci-fi proclivities aside, happen to believe in the multiverse. Although I am tempted to do so. As a seven-point Calvinist, that is. Best.CKS
Jersey Girl Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 I guess I just don't, all my sci-fi proclivities aside, happen to believe in the multiverse. Although I am tempted to do so. As a seven-point Calvinist, that is. Best.CKSHow do you know there aren't any others?
cksalmon Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 How do you know there aren't any others?Don't. Best guess?
Doctor Steuss Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Doctor Steuss,Your answers helps illustrate the point I am trying to make ... the Son of God is the divine nature, there is never a time when he is not the divine nature ... on the other hand, man can have or not have the divine nature since they are only partakers of the divine nature.I disagree that this helps your point. God the Son â??beingâ? the divine nature and manâ??s ability to gain or lose the divine nature does not negate manâ??s ability to be just like the Son. The ability for man to lose said nature does not limit G-dâ??s grace for the unlimited potential of mankind.But, we are still back to your previous statement. Is God the Son the source or not? If He is not the source, how can He be that which He is not the source of? If God the Son can be that which He is not the source of, why would man be any different? Why would G-d the Father withold that which He has given so freely to another?
johnny Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Doctor Steuss,But, we are still back to your previous statement. Is God the Son the source or not? If He is not the source, how can He be that which He is not the source of? If God the Son can be that which He is not the source of, why would man be any different? Why would G-d the Father withold that which He has given so freely to another?Men are different than God the Son because men become adopted divine sons of God. God the Son is the only naturally divine son of God, he does not need adoption like men. The Bible uses the terms light and children of light. God the Son is light from light(source). Men become children of light through adoption, by partaking of the light(divine nature).It is not that God the Father is not withholding it from men, it is that men are not naturally children of light they need to BECOME children of light through God's grace and by partaking of the light(divine nature). On the other hand, God the Son does not need to BECOME a child of light because he naturally light (divine nature).
LifeOnaPlate Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Doctor Steuss,Men are different than God the Son because men become adopted divine sons of God. God the Son is the only naturally divine son of God, he does not need adoption like men. The Bible uses the terms light and children of light. God the Son is light from light(source). Men become children of light through adoption, by partaking of the light(divine nature).It is not that God the Father is not withholding it from men, it is that men are not naturally children of light they need to BECOME children of light through God's grace and by partaking of the light(divine nature). On the other hand, God the Son does not need to BECOME a child of light because he naturally light (divine nature).What makes a son of light different from a child of light? Cannot a child be a son? Can a son be a child? I see your point, but I disagree, because your point is based on your personal interpretation. The scriptures do not specify the differences or limitations you express on what we, as God-the Father of our Spirits-'s children can become.
Doctor Steuss Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Doctor Steuss,Men are different than God the Son because men become adopted divine sons of God. God the Son is the only naturally divine son of God, he does not need adoption like men. The Bible uses the terms light and children of light. God the Son is light from light(source). Men become children of light through adoption, by partaking of the light(divine nature).It is not that God the Father is not withholding it from men, it is that men are not naturally children of light they need to BECOME children of light through God's grace and by partaking of the light(divine nature). On the other hand, God the Son does not need to BECOME a child of light because he naturally light (divine nature). So we are left with a quandary. Through â??adoption,â? men become â??children of light.â? However, they will not (according to you) be equivalent to the "Son of light." So -- as far as I can see -- we have one of two options as to why this is:1) G-d doesnâ??t have the power to make men fully â??sons of lightâ? (in the sense that God the Son is) through this adoption process.2) G-d has the power to do it, but for some unknown reason He chooses not to (despite seeming promises within the canon that He will).Edited to add: Also, there is still the additional quandary that God the Son is not the source. The problems this causes your thesis have not been fully resolved
johnny Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 LifeOnaPlate,What makes a son of light different from a child of light? Cannot a child be a son? Can a son be a child? I see your point, but I disagree, because your point is based on your personal interpretation. The scriptures do not specify the differences or limitations you express on what we, as God-the Father of our Spirits-'s children can become.My point is based on scripture. From scripture: Men are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3) and become children of light through adoption. The Son of God is ONLY son of God (John 1:18).
johnny Posted July 13, 2007 Posted July 13, 2007 Doctor Steuss,1) G-d doesnâ??t have the power to make men fully â??sons of lightâ? (in the sense that God the Son is) through this adoption process.God has the power but men are naturally limited because they are only partakers of this power.Edited to add: Also, there is still the additional quandary that God the Son is not the source. The problems this causes your thesis have not been fully resolvedThe Son cannot be the source, because the Son is begotten of the Father.
e=mc2 Posted July 14, 2007 Posted July 14, 2007 Johnny:It is not that God the Father is not withholding it from men, it is that men are not naturally children of light they need to BECOME children of light through God's grace and by partaking of the light(divine nature). On the other hand, God the Son does not need to BECOME a child of light because he naturally light (divine nature).And it is this difference, this limitation of mankind which is precisely what Christ came to earth to fill. i.e., we are partakers of the Divine Nature through Christ, and hence we are all that He is, as He is of the Father. THIS is what is called the "AT-ONE-MENT. Christ came to become what we are, so that He might make us what He is. You tell me what Christ is, and we are joint-heirs with Him, and all that He is. Whether by adoption or not is irrelevant, we become like Christ IN God. That is what the Bible teaches.
johnny Posted July 14, 2007 Posted July 14, 2007 e=mc2,You tell me what Christ is, and we are joint-heirs with Him, and all that He is. Whether by adoption or not is irrelevant, we become like Christ IN God. That is what the Bible teaches.Will you be a Creator like the Son of God was in the beginning, in the beginning the Son of God was the Logos, "the Word" of God (John 1:1,14; 1John 1,2)?
e=mc2 Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 We will have the ability to create, exactly like God can. No I won't replace Christ's station, nor do I desire to, but I will have all the same abilities, talents, powers, and glory since I inherit all that He has through the Father.
Jersey Girl Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 Johnny:And it is this difference, this limitation of mankind which is precisely what Christ came to earth to fill. i.e., we are partakers of the Divine Nature through Christ, and hence we are all that He is, as He is of the Father. THIS is what is called the "AT-ONE-MENT. Christ came to become what we are, so that He might make us what He is. You tell me what Christ is, and we are joint-heirs with Him, and all that He is. Whether by adoption or not is irrelevant, we become like Christ IN God. That is what the Bible teaches.If a child is adopted, does it inherit all the attributes of it's adoptive parent? I say no.
e=mc2 Posted July 15, 2007 Posted July 15, 2007 The difference is that you are speaking of mortality, and the Bible teaches the inheritance is as Sons (and Daughters) of GOD, the immortal realms and powers associated with them as immortals.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.