Who's Coming To Dinner?

[Sargon]

I think we would set four or more, assuming Ms. God would come along.

Mrs.

[cksalmon]

Well what do you do? I could be lying...or I could just be totally disinterested in yet one more anti-Mormon hawking his wares and chasing me down on message boards. You all tend to start looking alike. Sorry if I gave out wrong information....perhaps you could just correct it next time instead of having a meltdown. Just a thought.

As I wrote, I assume you're not lying. You're certainly not disinterested, either. Uninterested, perhaps (though your post accusing me of running anti-Mormon websites would seem to constitute a performative contradiction with regard to the proposition: "I am not interested in yet one more anti-Mormon hawking his wares").

Without a doubt, what you are, in fact, is wrong. There is no "if."

You could save me the trouble of correcting you by not posting unverified information about me, information the truth or falsity of which you have not a clue. That seems like the simpler option. Just a thought.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

What is the fear in the EV community? Is it that, to believe (the truth) that they are three individuals acting in perfect harmony as one God, would be polytheism?

We have an eyewitness account from the Book of Acts...When Stephen was being stoned

Acts 7: 55

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God

[juliann]

As I wrote, I assume you're not lying. You're certainly not disinterested, either. Uninterested, perhaps (though your post accusing me of running anti-Mormon websites would seem to constitute a performative contradiction with regard to the proposition: "I am not interested in yet one more anti-Mormon hawking his wares").

Without a doubt, what you are, in fact, is wrong. There is no "if."

You could save me the trouble of correcting you by not posting unverified information about me, information the truth or falsity of which you have not a clue. That seems like the simpler option. Just a thought.

Well let me clarify what I said. I am not interested enough in every random anti on the internet to keep a biography. I really don't care enough about what you do in your free time to get the facts. My bad. Nor do I care enough to research it. I asked you what you really do do...and as usual you have neglected to respond. If it is important to you, tell us what you do. If not...correct us when we are wrong. Or, have a multi-post meltdown. Whatever.

What is the fear in the EV community? Is it that, to believe (the truth) that they are three individuals acting in perfect harmony as one God, would be polytheism?

Yes. Meanwhile, they are reacting to the human need to see God as who and what he is.

[Hoops22]

What is the fear in the EV community? Is it that, to believe (the truth) that they are three individuals acting in perfect harmony as one God, would be polytheism?

We have an eyewitness account from the Book of Acts...When Stephen was being stoned

Acts 7: 55

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God

We not only agree that Jesus has a body but that Stephen could see this vision as described. This in no way precludes our contention of one God. It's really not that tough. Jesus' position is a relational position which has no impact on His God"ness" nor in value.

[juliann]

We not only agree that Jesus has a body but that Stephen could see this vision as described. This in no way precludes our contention of one God. It's really not that tough. Jesus' position is a relational position which has no impact on His God"ness" nor in value.

So how many places would you set at the table?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So how many places would you set at the table?

I would have three and one for me at the kids table.

[John Williams]

Well let me clarify what I said. I am not interested enough in every random anti on the internet to keep a biography. I really don't care enough about what you do in your free time to get the facts. My bad. Nor do I care enough to research it. I asked you what you really do do...and as usual you have neglected to respond. If it is important to you, tell us what you do. If not...correct us when we are wrong. Or, have a multi-post meltdown. Whatever.

Maybe it would help if you knew that cksalmon isn't engaged in any anti-Mormon activity other than his participation here, which I'd hardly call anti-Mormon. If you know of something he's doing, please let us know. I didn't see any meltdown, either, multipost or otherwise. Maybe the nonexistent meltdown was on the nonexistent anti-Mormon websites, huh?

Yes. Meanwhile, they are reacting to the human need to see God as who and what he is.

I find it odd that you think EVs are afraid of their own theology, or at least your caricature of it. Oh, well.

And can someone please fix the thread title? It offends me as an editor.

[Hoops22]

And can someone please fix the thread title? It offends me as an editor.

That was funny.

[Paul Ray]

If God is coming to dinner I'm setting at least 8 spots. Here's the reasoning:

2-Me/date (If I'm hosting a dinner that God is coming to, I'm roping someone into a date. There is no going stag at a dinner for God)

2-God/date (Holy Mother perhaps?)

2-Jesus/date (Um....I'm thinking the Savior can rustle up a date)

2-Holy Ghost/date (holy Ghostess perhaps?)

What about your children? Do you have children?

I'm sure they would like to have dinner with God too.

Anyway, I would set as a minimum 8 spots.

Oh, I see... the minimum. I think I gotcha now.

A more pressing issue would be the entree? What do you serve the Creator of all things? Chicken? Steak? Lobster? A Roast? What? What? What? I mean you'd think that after a long hard day of being God he wouldn't want to have to face his work...so I'm guessing he'd want something synthetic, like a couple of Twinkies or other substances which are unGodly.

After our Lord's resurrection, he asked if his disciples had any meat.

Do you have any meat? Do you have fish? He liked fish.

Just serve up some fish and some nice whole wheat rolls.

... and some veggies, if you can spare any veggies.

The next issue is the place settings themselves. What do you serve food on to God?

I suppose it depends on what you are serving.

A bowl and spoon would be appropriate for a seafood gumbo, while a plate, knife & fork would do nicely for steak... perhaps a ribeye with BBQ broiled potatoes and a nice Caesar salad for greens.

I'm sure they'll eat anything as long as it's good.

Once again...the same old issues appear. He created the silverware and teh crystal and the crockery, so what is left?

If God is coming to dinner, at your house, it depends on what you have.

I'm sure God wouldn't want you to go into debt for dinner.

Once again, we have to turn to manmade stuff. And that means styrofoam plates and plastic utensils. But what about the utensils? God created the fork, knife, and spoon.....so what's left? The spork of course!

Whoa! Hold on there! God didn't say you couldn't use what God made.

God has no problem at all with sharing.

[Confidential Informant]

So, are the non-LDS types advocating for a God who is so weak he cannot create another being just like Himself?

C.I.

[cksalmon]

So, are the non-LDS types advocating for a God who is so weak he cannot create another being just like Himself?

C.I.

I can only answer for myself. Your question, to my reading, evidences a category mistake. I'm a monotheist. If God alone is exalted in an ultimate manner above all his creatures by virtue of his infinite perfections, it is not logically possible that he can create a being equivalent to himself. Were God to do so, then God would no longer be the ultimate being in the universe. He would no longer be God in the senses relevant to my worldview, at least.

Thus, it is not an indication of any weakness on God's part that he cannot make himself less than ultimate by creating another being just like himself. The suggestion that he do so is an indication that one has not fully understand what makes God, God (to my reading).

It would be akin to asking if God can create a square circle. Or, asking if he can create a married bachelor. Definitionally, God cannot be less than God. Thus, God cannot instantiate a situation in which he is not ultimate. Thus, God cannot create another being equal to himself. Were he to do so, there would be two "ultimate" beings in the universe, which is definitionally impossible.

Best.

CKS

[soren]

Not when you take into account the curvature of space-time.

Indeed. My point, however, was not about the facts of mathematics, but about the reality of universal concepts as illustrated in the way the mind abstracts from particulars. I thought a Euclidean example would be easier and more familiar. My apologies to Lobachevsky.

[soren]

Wow, such a long post defending the Trinity. All of it in language foreign to the Bible, but springing forth from Greek Philosophy. That was more confusing than 10 Nicean creeds multiplied and added together.

Here is the LDS church's stance:

"I saw two personages standing above me in the air, one spake unto me, calling me by name saying: "Joseph, this is my beloved son hear him"

Simple isn't it?

To our eyes they may appear separate, but there are more senses than one. Their unity has to be in another way that is not obvious to the eyes. John Chapter 17 lays out the basic doctrine of HOW they are one quite cleanly and naturally. No mumbo jumbo greek words there.

So there, I have outlined a simple elegant rebuttal to your confused tangled Greek doctrine, and I have used the scriptures to back me up.

â??Greek doctrine?â? I ascribe no authority to the Greeks whatsoever, except insofar as their ideas may stand upon their own merits. I do ascribe validity to natural reason, and therefore admit that certain truth about God are knowable to all men by reason; while a saving knowledge of God requires certain truths to be known that are only available in revelation, the things that can be known simply by philosophy include very profound realities of Godâ??s nature. I say this not because it is my own opinion, but because it is the doctrine of St. Paul who teaches that the gentiles, who have not received revelation, are accountable for their sins because â??the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.â?

â??His eternal power and Godhead?â? Visible to the Greeks not simply by revelation, but by things are made. The entire genius of Aristotelian philosophy is thatit constructs a metaphysics based upon extrapolations from sense experience reasoning to universal principles and apprehending ultimate causes. That kind of knowledge, whereby God is known â??by the things that are made,â? is precisely what is described by St. Paul in this verse. In fact, among the various schools of Greek philosophy, only Platonism and Aristotelianism really answer to the kind of knowledge spoken of here, and Aristotelianism in particular.

If you will impeach philosophy solely on the ad hominem grounds that it is Greek, you argument is not with me, but with St. Paul.

As for language foreign to the Bible, I note two things: first, that â??one in purposeâ? is not found in the Bible or in any of the Standard Works, and no warrant can be found for it in any text; second, that â??one in beingâ? can be shown from the Bible by the plain and evident warrant of Godâ??s own name. In Deut 6:4, God reveals â??Here O Israel, Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is one.â? The oneness of God is directly related to the name â??Jehovah,â? which means â??I am.â? It names God according to His existence, and then relates Godâ??s existence to his oneness. From Johnâ??s gospel, and somewhat from Markâ??s, it is easy to deduce that Jehovah is the name of Jesus, because of the way he uses the phrase â??I am.â?

In Hebrews 5:5-6 we read, â??So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.â? The one glorified by Christ is identified here as â??not himselfâ? and also as the speaker of these two verses from the Psalms. Who is that speaker who is other than Christ? If we flip back to Ps. 2:7 we find: I will declare the decree, Jehovah hath said unto me, Thou art art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Ps. 110:4 reads â??Jehovah hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedec.â?

It is clear from this that the speaker is the Father and the Father is also Jehovah, the same â??I amâ? who is â??One.â? If one considers the important God always places upon his own name, commanding that it never be taken in vain, we must take God seriously when he uses that name himself. It signifies a unique existence, yet names both the Father and the Son, who are yet not one another, since in glorifying the Fathers, Jesus glorifies â??not himself.â?

No, the Bible does not use all my terminology. Yet it does not use yours either. The bible does, however, teach the concepts from which my words are extrapolated.

[Bernard Gui]

Eliminate what from my what?

Yes, that is it.

Bernard

[soren]

Ever consider the possibility that Hegel was full of it?

If by â??full of itâ? you mean he was just blithering, I have certainly considered that that, but I think it is untenable in light of the influence Hegelâ??s thought has had on so much of the world. Although I do not understand him, I know the reason why: his philosophy is a closed system within the inner mind, and the basic abstraction needed to make it coherent are very difficult and yet never explained by Hegel in his writing, although he instructed his students in it.

If by â??full of itâ? you mean his philosophy was false, I think it is. But I base this opinion upon what I understand of his thinking, not what I do not understand.

Anyway, to ask Nibley's question, "Does the revealed truth require any such help at all? . . . It needs no special pleading, let alone battalions of technically trained experts, to render it effective. If men do not accept the gospel as it stands, there is no profit in dressing it up to make it more appetizing." Hugh Nibley, "The World and the Prophets."

Bernard

I agree with this, although special pleading is not employed by Trinitarian theology.

Technically trained experts are good, but they are useless without patient students. The reason I go on at length explaining abstract nuances of my theology is not to impress you with my learnedness. I do it â?? and this is the only reason I do it â?? because I honestly believe that you yourself, if you take Trinitarian theology seriously and consider what it says on its own merits, can come to a clear understanding of it. In fact, I donâ??t just believe that. I know it. No one can be taught to believe in it, but anyone can be taught to understand it.

I cannot count the number of times on the website that I have plugged a book by Frank Sheed called â??Theology and Sanityâ? and sometimes I also recommend â??Theology for Beginners.â? I have occasionally gotten nasty responses for suggesting that Mormons should read this book, even though I also advise Catholics to learn LDS theology. The reason I plug these particular books is precisely because they are intelligible to normal people who are willing to read them carefully. Sheed is a technically trained expert, but you do not need to be one to understand him. Though he is not the last word on the Trinity, he provides the clearest explanation for beginners available in the English language.

If you assume that the philosophical terminology and reasoning employed in Trinitarian theology is there to create a smokescreen, blurring its meaning so that it cannot be refuted without scaling away a huge apparatus of intellectual mazework, I can conclude that you have never read Sheed.

I am not trying to dress up my doctrine. If that were my goal, it would be stupid of me to do a bunch of philosophical hairsplitting. Philosophical language has more the nature of making something seem dry than appetizing. If I wanted to dress it up, I would use elegant rhetoric. You doubtless have noticed that I wrote a very long post. I wrote it with no expectation that any LDS participant on this website would take it seriously. Frankly, I expected the usual dismissive responses like yours and Programmers. I wrote it solely in the hope that my expectation would be wrong. I would do it again for the same hope, a hope I possess because I believe in Jesus.

[Beowulf]

MC wrote: QUOTE

"three distinct persons" is the only correct terminology, because only this terminology accurately expresses the correct concept, "Person," properly understood, truly expresses the individuation (distinction) of rational substance without any implication of separaton, that is, division into parts, except when attributed to finite beings.

Complete and utter gibberish. A person cannot be more than one "being" and a "being" cannot be more than one person. Volumes have been wasted on this absurd concept. It is a pure invention; a fiction fabricated by conjoining two mutually exclusive concepts and slapping on a coat of semantic nonsense to hide the seams.

Me: Yay! For once I agree completely with MC... Pop the corks. Shoot off the fireworks!!

Beowulf

[Bernard Gui]

If by â??full of itâ? you mean he was just blithering, I have certainly considered that that, but I think it is untenable in light of the influence Hegelâ??s thought has had on so much of the world. Although I do not understand him, I know the reason why: his philosophy is a closed system within the inner mind, and the basic abstraction needed to make it coherent are very difficult and yet never explained by Hegel in his writing, although he instructed his students in it.

If by â??full of itâ? you mean his philosophy was false, I think it is. But I base this opinion upon what I understand of his thinking, not what I do not understand.

I agree with this, although special pleading is not employed by Trinitarian theology.

Technically trained experts are good, but they are useless without patient students. The reason I go on at length explaining abstract nuances of my theology is not to impress you with my learnedness. I do it â?? and this is the only reason I do it â?? because I honestly believe that you yourself, if you take Trinitarian theology seriously and consider what it says on its own merits, can come to a clear understanding of it. In fact, I donâ??t just believe that. I know it. No one can be taught to believe in it, but anyone can be taught to understand it.

I cannot count the number of times on the website that I have plugged a book by Frank Sheed called â??Theology and Sanityâ? and sometimes I also recommend â??Theology for Beginners.â? I have occasionally gotten nasty responses for suggesting that Mormons should read this book, even though I also advise Catholics to learn LDS theology. The reason I plug these particular books is precisely because they are intelligible to normal people who are willing to read them carefully. Sheed is a technically trained expert, but you do not need to be one to understand him. Though he is not the last word on the Trinity, he provides the clearest explanation for beginners available in the English language.

If you assume that the philosophical terminology and reasoning employed in Trinitarian theology is there to create a smokescreen, blurring its meaning so that it cannot be refuted without scaling away a huge apparatus of intellectual mazework, I can conclude that you have never read Sheed.

I am not trying to dress up my doctrine. If that were my goal, it would be stupid of me to do a bunch of philosophical hairsplitting. Philosophical language has more the nature of making something seem dry than appetizing. If I wanted to dress it up, I would use elegant rhetoric. You doubtless have noticed that I wrote a very long post. I wrote it with no expectation that any LDS participant on this website would take it seriously. Frankly, I expected the usual dismissive responses like yours and Programmers. I wrote it solely in the hope that my expectation would be wrong. I would do it again for the same hope, a hope I possess because I believe in Jesus.

Sorry not to rise to your high expectations. You miss my point. There is no reason to read anyone's treatise on the Trinity because I have no confidence they know more than the prophets when it comes to God. I suppose that could be called closed minded. So be it. I cop the plea. Here's a good book

for you to read: Hugh Nibley, "The World and the Prophets." Also a highly trained expert, Nibley draws clear lines between those who know, the prophets, and those who do not, the world.

Bernard

[soren]

Sorry not to rise to your high expectations. You miss my point. There is no reason to read anyone's treatise on the Trinity because I have no confidence they know more than the prophets when it comes to God. I suppose that could be called closed minded. So be it. I cop the plea. Here's a good book

for you to read: Hugh Nibley, "The World and the Prophets." Also a highly trained expert, Nibley draws clear lines between those who know, the prophets, and those who do not, the world.

Bernard

I've read it.

[Bond...James Bond]

What about your children? Do you have children?

I'm sure they would like to have dinner with God too.

Oh, I see... the minimum. I think I gotcha now.

After our Lord's resurrection, he asked if his disciples had any meat.

Do you have any meat? Do you have fish? He liked fish.

Just serve up some fish and some nice whole wheat rolls.

... and some veggies, if you can spare any veggies.

I suppose it depends on what you are serving.

A bowl and spoon would be appropriate for a seafood gumbo, while a plate, knife & fork would do nicely for steak... perhaps a ribeye with BBQ broiled potatoes and a nice Caesar salad for greens.

I'm sure they'll eat anything as long as it's good.

If God is coming to dinner, at your house, it depends on what you have.

I'm sure God wouldn't want you to go into debt for dinner.

Whoa! Hold on there! God didn't say you couldn't use what God made.

God has no problem at all with sharing.

Hee. I'm just glad to see someone is willing to joke along with ole Bond.

[Confidential Informant]

Were he to do so, there would be two "ultimate" beings in the universe, which is definitionally impossible.

The really interesting part of this exchange is that you don't even seem to grasp the irony of what you've just stated. The very notion of the "trinity" is "definitionally impossible." That's been Juliann's whole point.

C.I.

[Hoops22]

The really interesting part of this exchange is that you don't even seem to grasp the irony of what you've just stated. The very notion of the "trinity" is "definitionally impossible." That's been Juliann's whole point.

C.I.

Not to jump in where I'm not wanted (I spend a lot of time in my own house!) but, no, the opposite is true.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not to jump in where I'm not wanted (I spend a lot of time in my own house!) but, no, the opposite is true.

un-uh. NO! It isnt true. Just he opposite of what you claim is. Now go eat your puffs of the coaco variety.

[soren]

The really interesting part of this exchange is that you don't even seem to grasp the irony of what you've just stated. The very notion of the "trinity" is "definitionally impossible." That's been Juliann's whole point.

C.I.

That has been Juliann's point, but it is not a claim that Julian, or any non-Trinitarian on this thread has justified by appealling to what the definitions actually are. Unless Juliann engaged the definitions themselves, this is a bare assertion, without any supporting reason. It is also necessary to take into account, if definitional contradiction is to be held, what the terms terms imply when attirbuted specifically to an infinite rather than a finite existence. If these point are not engaged, no case againt Trinitarian theology has been made.

I would love for sombody to give a serious reply to the laundry-list of Old Testament verses that identify the Father as I AM just as well as the Son. I've been a semi-regular participant on this wedsite for half a year and have pointed to the Father and Son's sharing of the name I AM as a warrent for "one in being" probably dozens of times. Tsuzuki remains the only person who has even attempted to interact with it. By contrast, the absence of any comparable warrant for "one in purpose" in any of the Standard Works never seems to trouble anyone.

[Paul Ray]

A person cannot be more than one "being" and a "being" cannot be more than one person.

Try a different paradigm.

All of us are human beings, and in a sense, there is only one being that is known as human being.

Some people seem to like to think in terms of us being a mixture of different races, but in essence, we are all the same being, even though we exist as separate persons.

Bear in mind that we were all created in the image of God, male and female... like them.

We are all of the same species as our Father, and our Lord, even though they are more perfect than us.

... for now.

I hope most of us will all be one with them, someday.