Tanyan Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 Perhaps someone can post a F.A.I.R conference paper done back in 1999 entitled : I HAVE SAID YE ARE GODS, Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testement Text. I also am told that the Greek for 2 Cor 8:9 is a powerfull evidence for Deification/Theosis. May Grace Shine on all. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan.
LifeOnaPlate Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 Fine. "God" can denote whatever you'd like it to. What I'm suggesting is that by saying you and I and everyone else on this planet are right now Gods splits you pretty wide from any traditional belief system and, IMO, completely erases any majesty that the word has.If you want to say "God just means we can someday become like God", I will says that's peachy keen...but I need a new word for the fully realized, fully developed "God" Gods, if that's the case. Maybe I can just say God, when I'm talking about myself, and GOD, when I'm talking about our Father in Heaven.You seem to be an effective god to yourself, alright.I do understand what you are all saying. When I look at my little 2 year old daughter I see not only a toddler, but all that she could be someday. All that she will be someday. But as I said before, she still is a toddler. If I call her an "adult", I'm either misusing the word or assigning attributes to her that, while I hope she one day has, she currently does not. Hence the two words: child and adult. We are children. God is an adult. Even if we are both "divine" in nature, if that is to be believed, who can deny the major separation between what we are today vs. what God is today? One is a God. The other, even if a God in training, is not a "God". Yes, yes....one can say it all they want. I will leave it that it's an inappropriate use of the word unless you open up the term to include anyone and everyone. And if you do that - what's the point?Suppose your last name is "Smith." Do you call your daughter a "Smith"? Do you wait until she is an adult before calling her Smith? Or suppose your daughter is human. Do you wait until she is an adult before calling her human?
Obiwan Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 In his latest book, "Exploring Mormon Thought: Of God and Gods" (pp.17-18), Blake Ostler states: Does anyone here agree with Blake? Is this view "now widely accepted"?Joseph Smith himself had this view as recorded in the King Follet Discourse.He specifically states in there that the Father was a man "like Christ" was.Yes, in another section or two he states that the Father was a man like us, but reading further he clarifies that he was actually like Christ. Of course, Christ also "was a man like us" as well.But to be clear, none of this precludes the idea that the father was once at some point exactly as a man (not a God man as Christ), but, as of yet, no known revelation has been received on such. But, the point of it all is certainly to "imply" that there is this closer familial and progressive connection then has directly been revealed so far. Either way, we still are literal sons and daughters of the Father.
oceanblue Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 You seem to be an effective god to yourself, alright.As the only person on this thread who does not think of himself as a God, I find that statement incredibly funny. Suppose your last name is "Smith." Do you call your daughter a "Smith"? Do you wait until she is an adult before calling her Smith? Or suppose your daughter is human. Do you wait until she is an adult before calling her human?Sure. And one could say we're all "sons and daughers of God". We do say this. And it makes sense. That doesn't diminish my argument, IMO, in any way. It's all in the way you/we look at things. I call an acorn an "acorn". You guys say an acorn is a tree...even if it's still just a nut. To me - we're ALL just nuts. Oh yeah.
cjcampbell Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 I do understand what you are all saying. When I look at my little 2 year old daughter I see not only a toddler, but all that she could be someday. All that she will be someday. But as I said before, she still is a toddler. If I call her an "adult", I'm either misusing the word or assigning attributes to her that, while I hope she one day has, she currently does not. Hence the two words: child and adult. We are children. God is an adult. Even if we are both "divine" in nature, if that is to be believed, who can deny the major separation between what we are today vs. what God is today? One is a God. The other, even if a God in training, is not a "God". Yes, yes....one can say it all they want. I will leave it that it's an inappropriate use of the word unless you open up the term to include anyone and everyone. And if you do that - what's the point?I think it is a matter of perspective. It is not what we will be some day that makes us gods. It is what we are now. Here in mortality we see but a tiny portion of our own existence; a veil is drawn across the rest. We are the gods the created the earth. I don't see beings who do that sort of thing as 'children.' In fact, our spirits are adults. Only our bodies are immature and imperfect.What we see is like trying to judge the nature of a man by looking at his toenails and not being able to see anything else.
LifeOnaPlate Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I invite all interested parties to read my blog post today, which discusses an interesting sermon by Brigham Young on becoming gods. Implicit Confidence in God: Part 3On becoming gods
Kreno Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 Ye ARE Gods."Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter" - Yoda
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.