Orthodox Christians Are Atheists

[Calm]

Atheists are much more like Mormons.

That would depend on what is being measured. For example, atheists are closer to evangelicals than LDS when it comes to average number of children.

[The King's Servant]

Ugh. I need a break, but before I go I'll say this, again:

Man is already the same kind of being God is, although not necessarily as perfect as our Father in heaven.

Have a good weekend folks. I'm blowing this popsicle stand.

Of course, this may be the teaching of Mormonism and its founder, Joseph Smith. It is incredibly unbiblical, and in fact, Lucifer's sin was grasping for equality with God. Of course, we all know his outcome. God is Creator - you are a creature.

[altersteve]

Of course, this may be the teaching of Mormonism and its founder, Joseph Smith. It is incredibly unbiblical . . .

No, actually it's not "incredibly unbiblical" at all.

. . . and in fact, Lucifer's sin was grasping for equality with God. Of course, we all know his outcome.

Wrong. Lucifer's sin was his arrogance in not just wanting but actually thinking that he could be equal with God without the need for a Savior. And we don't believe that we will ever be "equal" with God anyway.

God is Creator - you are a creature.

No one ever denied that God is Creator, but we are more than "creatures." We are God's children.

Edited September 27, 2011 by altersteve

[Calm]

No, actually it's not "incredibly unbiblical" at all.

Wrong. Lucifer's sin was his arrogance in not just wanting but actually thinking that he could be equal with God without the need for a Savior. And we don't believe that we will ever be "equal" with God anyway.

It was more than that, Lucifer wanted God's glory, he wanted to be superior to God, not his equal.

[altersteve]

I also thought I would comment on the points made here.

I have a different take on the Mormon view of God. I see it as essentially atheistic - or, not believing in any type of being "other" than man as a deity. For Mormonism, God was once a man and learned to become a god.

This is false. Official LDS doctrine states that God the Father passed through mortality, not that He was once not God. Everything beyond that is speculation.

He progressed to godhood (see King Follett Discourse).

The King Follett discourse doesn't say this.

In order to make an exalted human being a deity, one must diminish the nature of God, the eternality of God, the omnsicience of God (the Mormon God is always progressing in knowledge), and the omnipontence and omnipresence of God.

The "Mormon God" is not "always progressing in knowledge." He already knows all things. He is "progressing" in the sense that as we worship Him, He is glorified, and His glory increases.

Once the definition of God is changed, then the exalted human argument of Mormonism can be made acceptable to Mormon believers.

LDS doctrine does not change the definition of God, it clarifies it.

For this reason, Mormons are unable to actually comprehend a deity without flesh and bones, since gods are, in fact, men exalted to the highest order of existence.

The Holy Ghost is without flesh and bones, yet Latter-day Saints can comprehend Him just fine. And gods are not, by the way, exalted to the "highest order of existence." God the Father is the highest. He is the God of gods; all other "gods" are forever subject to Him and His Son.

But, they are still men - beings contingent upon other beings for their existence. One Mormon writer states that if mankind did not "sustain" Heavenly Father, he would cease being a god.

And who is this "Mormon writer"?

Due to their inclination to think of everything in two demensional terms. Mormons are totally unable to grasp the idea of existence outside of a physical dimension.

This rather offensive accusation, which implies that Mormons are somehow less intelligent than yourself, is completely false. Latter-day Saints are completely able to grasp such a concept.

Thus, we have early Mormons calling Joseph Smith a god . . .

CFR, please.

. . . and teaching that Heavenly Father had marital relations with the Blessed Virgin Mary in order for Jesus to be conceived (since repudiated by modern Mormons, although clearly taught by Young and others).

The Church has never taught that the Father had sex with Mary.

For the Mormons, there is nothing but physical existence, even in the realm of spirit, which is simply refined matter.

Since when does matter have to be "physical"?

Since, for the Mormons, God is really a human . . .

"The Mormons" do not believe this at all.

. . . they are really a-theistic in the commonly accepted understanding of that word.

Not even. The "common accepted understanding" of the word "atheism" is that there is no God. We believe that there is a God. Our beliefs regarding the nature of God are irrelevant.

For Christians, God is "other" than man; He is above man, and in an entirely spiritual dimension - outside of physical existence.

Does the Bible specifically say that God lives in an "entirely spiritual dimension"? No? Then why do you believe it? And Latter-day Saints agree with you 100% when you say that God is above man.

Mormons tend to reject what their fallen, finite minds cannot understand (this was Smith's downfall). They do not reach outside the box, for in Mormondom, all existence MUST be physical, for their own deity is simply an exalted man.

I'm sorry, but your understanding of "Mormondom" is severely lacking. This is borderline insulting.

Edited September 27, 2011 by altersteve

[ebeddoulos]

It is actually three persons in one person--which is more obviously absurd. But they try to dodge the obvious absurdity by calling it three persons in one God--as if God was not a person--hoping thereby to paper over the absurdity, thinking that nobody will notice!

What I find far more fascinating is not how Rob defined the trinity but how Rob defined God:

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons (loci of relationality) co-existing eternally as one God (one transcendent, self-existent being who is solely responsible for the creation of all other beings).

I may be incorrect but I do not think that Rob copied that definition. I cannot find it on the internet, in my electronic library nor in my library. I believe that is Rob's own personal creed. Notice in Rob's own words that God is "transcendent, self-existent being who is solely responsible for the creation of all other beings." Rob says that God is a being and Rob also says this being created "all other beings". The "transcendent, self-existent being" created beings in his own image. In short, by Rob's own definition, we, the "other beings" are gods in embrio.

I for one welcome Rob aboard. I'm glad he finally came out. I would not have guessed that Rob was a closet Mormon in this area. Perhaps this is something recent.

[saemo]

I had a question enter my head the other night while studying the Book of Daniel. Daniel is tremendously exciting to study - especially inasmuch as it is written partially to the Jews (in Hebrew), and partially written to the Gentiles (in Aramaic). Of course, the end times prophesies are awesome, it contains the interrupted prayer which teaches us about how powerful the dominions and principalities of darkness really are,etc., and King Nebuchadnezzar himself wrote the fourth chapter... Anyway, it got me thinking about how Jesus is Jewish. He is the God of Abraham; thus the God who covenanted with Abraham long before Jesus was ever born in the flesh. So, here is my question to Trinitarians. Is the Trinity Jewish? I am not being light hearted here; I seriously wonder if those who believe in the Trinity have ever thought this through. If Father, Son and Holy Ghost are, indeed, of the same substance (and/or essence), wouldn't they also all be Jewish? Also, then, how would this look to those who believe in Replacement Theology? Does this mean that converted Gentiles (not forgetting, btw, that Jesus was also called Rabbi) believe in a Jewish God? Somehow, wouldn't this also make God a respector of persons? This opens a huge box of questions.

Best regards,

jo

Took me a minute to figure out your train of thought. You have one error in Trinitarian belief, and that is, when we speak of the Divine substance of God, and how that relates to the Person of Jesus Christ, you have to remember that Jesus Christ was fully human and fully divine. God became Man. This is specifically the doctrine of the Incarnation.

God does not have a religion, or more to the point of your question, the essence of God does not have a religion. Jesus Christ, the Man, was indeed Jewish. His divine essence, is just that, Divine. God's nature is transcendent, Divinity not having a class or category, including that of religion. Jesus' human nature, having the attributes of humans.

Hope that helps.

Peace.

[saemo]

To the topic of the thread, the first premise of Trinitarian belief is that, God is. God teaching this to Moses when He said, "I AM". Jesus, repeating the same words, "I AM".

God is not nothing, He is everything. This is Christian doctrine. We could not even describe the three Persons of the Trinity as being of the same substance, if they did not in fact, have a substance. That substance is called GOD.

Hope that helps.

Peace.

[Ahab]

Of course, this may be the teaching of Mormonism and its founder, Joseph Smith. It is incredibly unbiblical, and in fact, Lucifer's sin was grasping for equality with God. Of course, we all know his outcome. God is Creator - you are a creature.

The idea that we are the same kind of being God is is Biblical. Many people who wrote something that is now part of the Bible said God is our Father in heaven, and we are his offspring/children.

Lucifer's/Satan's sin was in wanting something other than what our Father wanted while still wanting to be considered equal with God, but evil can never be good so what he is now is the total opposite of what our Father in heaven is like.

And being a creature doesn't mean you can't be or become a creator.

[Ahab]

To the topic of the thread, the first premise of Trinitarian belief is that, God is. God teaching this to Moses when He said, "I AM". Jesus, repeating the same words, "I AM".

God is not nothing, He is everything. This is Christian doctrine. We could not even describe the three Persons of the Trinity as being of the same substance, if they did not in fact, have a substance. That substance is called GOD.

Hope that helps.

Peace.

I find it helpful to think of that substance as something like DNA... the "whatever it is" which makes all 3 of them the same kind of being which we refer to as "God".

[altersteve]

God is not nothing, He is everything.

The problem with that is that it doesn't make any sense. Does that mean I am God? If God is everything, then the laptop I am using right now is God. So is the chair I'm sitting in. So is the cereal I'm eating. So is the car that just drove down the street outside my window.

How can God be everything?

Edited September 27, 2011 by altersteve

[Ahab]

The problem with that is that it doesn't make any sense. Does that mean I am God? If God is everything, then the laptop I am using right now is God. So is the chair I'm sitting in. So is the cereal I'm eating. So is the car that just drove down the street outside my window.

How can God be everything?

I think it's an emotional statement, like how someone in love will sometimes say, or sing: You are my everything!

Kinda sweet, actually.

[Mudcat]

@ the charges leveled towards Orthodox sorts or Christians as stated in the OP and across the thread.

As an Evangelical, I don't think I have any compelling reason to find similarity between my belief in God and an atheistic outlook. The whole notion that my belief in God being immaterial in a spiritual sense should somehow would pigeonhole myself and other Orthodox Christians with atheists on the matter is a bit of a canard.

As a mind/body dualist I believe that my own immaterial spirit is the cognitive force that "drives" my body. From what I can gather many LDS think similarly about their own spirits, with the exception that they believe that their spirits are material. Science doesn't conclude either position, they simply haven't resolved the hard issue of cognition.

It should be noted that we don't see scientific observation of outside forces acting upon the brain in an every day sense. This creates a larger problem for someone making a claim that the spirit is material. If the spirit were material, then the interaction between the material spirit and material body should be observable, but we have no such observations.

"Unobservable material spirit" creates the same sort of arguments that "immaterial spirit" could. So I think LDS have similar issues in this regard and the whole "non-LDS Christians are atheists mantra" is just a bogey.

I could spend a bit of time contrasting why atheistic claims are unassociated with theistic claims of orthodoxy, but I think these differences should be quite apparent to anyone who bothers to think about it for a few seconds.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited September 27, 2011 by Mudcat

[Zakuska]

The weight of a human soul.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

Pertinent and intresting.

[Jesterss]

The weight of a human soul.

http://www.snopes.co.../soulweight.asp

Pertinent and intresting.

What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams.

[Zakuska]

Yes I read the conclusion. This was also done in 1907. Our technology has advanced and become more precise since then. Lets repeat it.

[CV75]

As an Evangelical, I don't think I have any compelling reason to find similarity between my belief in God and an atheistic outlook. The whole notion that my belief in God being immaterial in a spiritual sense should somehow would pigeonhole myself and other Orthodox Christians with atheists on the matter is a bit of a canard.

I think the OP charge is unfounded for the reasons I posted several times.

I also think that anyone would agree that incorrect religious / spiritual principles have as much saving power in Christ as atheistic principles. We view immaterialsm as incorrect.

From a strictly LDS view, a God of flesh and bone is in line with revealed truth. We realize this is not accepted by other denominations. However, we have found that the faith that this truth engenders serves as a great blessing and principle of spiritual power in Christ.

Since we believe that faith can only be exercised on a true principle, then it follows that an incorrect or false principle cannot engender faith, and that the children of God under such a restriction cannot enjoy the same blessing. Nevertheless, they still have other truths, exercise faith in them, and enjoy the associated blessings. This is why we say, “Keep all the truth you have, and come and partake of the additional truth that the Lord has given.”

[Jesterss]

Yes I read the conclusion. This was also done in 1907. Our technology has advanced and become more precise since then. Lets repeat it.

Definitely, it would be quite fascinating. I believe it has been done recently though and the same conclusion was reached, immeasurable basically. Watched a show on the science channel I think it was. Will have to do some searching on it.

[Ahab]

Definitely, it would be quite fascinating. I believe it has been done recently though and the same conclusion was reached, immeasurable basically. Watched a show on the science channel I think it was. Will have to do some searching on it.

Immeasurable using our current state of technology, maybe, but who is to say that we'll never be able to measure it.

Light and air are composed of particles of matter, and many of us think of light and air when imagining what spirits/ghosts look like. I think all that needs to be realized is that spirits/ghosts have a form which must consist of some substance, even if the substance is only some light and air.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Ahab

[saemo]

The problem with that is that it doesn't make any sense. Does that mean I am God? If God is everything, then the laptop I am using right now is God. So is the chair I'm sitting in. So is the cereal I'm eating. So is the car that just drove down the street outside my window.

How can God be everything?

No altersteve, you are not God.

I suggest reading the Psalms. :-)

[Vance]

God is not nothing, He is everything.

The old "omni"-de jour approach to theology.

[altersteve]

No altersteve, you are not God.

I suggest reading the Psalms. :-)

I have read them, several times. And I see nothing in there that tells me that God is literally everything.

[Flyonthewall]

God is "everything" sounds a lot like the religions that believe there are tree spirits/gods, and river spirits/gods, and animal spirits/gods, etc.

[Calm]

God is "everything" sounds a lot like the religions that believe there are tree spirits/gods, and river spirits/gods, and animal spirits/gods, etc.

I suspect you are looking for the word pantheism, the belief that the universe and God are identical.

add-on: I do not believe any classical Christian is a pantheist.

Edited September 28, 2011 by calmoriah

[saemo]

No, I am not a pantheist. God is my Creator, the One who has given me breath, who strengthens my soul, and consoles my suffering. This to me, is everything. It is a common American English term, "He is everything". Are readers being obtuse? Or unable to understand in a non-literal sense?

Edited September 28, 2011 by saemo