Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Please try to omit the more confrontational language from your post. I have taken non-LDS to task on this and I expect our LDS posters to be as respectful if not more to non-LDS guests.ok will do.
Calm Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 we are replying to your asinine assertion that LDS believe in reincarnation. We can use what we believe as scripture to refute your assertion. Surely you see this. The audacity of some people.Saemo has clarified this was not an assertion but a demonstration that some similarities are meaningless, for us the similarity in language for reincarnation and the preexistence, for Catholics the similarity in language of the nature of God and the atheist concept of the nonexistence of God.....At least I think that was the point as it wasn't fully fleshed out.
etana Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Hello,Sure, relative to this thread, which points out we don't believe in the same God. Christians believe in One True God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe there are numerous threads where LDS go through great lengths to show this is a false belief.If two people do not even believe, or worship the same God, are they of the same religion? Does that mean, as an example, that Hindu's are Christians, because there is but One God, and they just worship and understand God in a different fashion? I have had one LDS person tell me that even atheists who view Jesus Christ in a favorable manner are technically Christian.<...>Hope that helps.I have to say that you have been very respectful and patient in the posts i have seen from you. I cringe a little when i see the the way that some of my fellow saints have replied to you.That said, let me answer this as respectfully as I can. The Hindu metaphor you gave is clever, but would only be relevant if we were discussing theists in general. We are discussing Christianity here and Hindus don't profess the Messiah or claim their salvation through his grace. We do and you do.We could split hairs about specific requirements of belief or practice (and that is what this discussion usually comes to) but we must understand that language is not a precise thing. In fact we all speak an idiolect that is unique to ourselves. Words mean what their speakers mean and also what their hearers interpret. These are not always the same thing. If you want to define Christian as a person who believes in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as a singular substance only rather than as a singular Authority, then you are welcome to do so, but that doesn't change what the word describes to the rest of us. 1
Flyonthewall Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) Hello, yes, Catholics have been reading the Bible for a long time, we don't ignore these scriptures, we do see them as telling us something different than what Mormons see....When God laid the foundations of the earth, all the sons of God shouted for joy, Job 38:4–7This is speaking of angels.The spirit shall return unto God who gave it, Eccl. 12:7God gave us our spirit at birth, this says nothing of a pre-existence.Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, Jer. 1:4–5God is omnipresent. Another example of this is John 1:48.King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. We are all his offspring, Acts 17:28Doesn't say anything about a pre-existence.God chose us before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1:3–4God is omnipresent, and again, doesn't say anything about a pre-existence.What do you mean "omnipresent"? It seems it would not matter if God were omnipresent if I did not exist. So can you explain how God knew anyone before they existed...and on what grounds He chose anyone? Where were we before the foundations of the world? Edited October 4, 2011 by Flyonthewall
saemo Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 I have to say that you have been very respectful and patient in the posts i have seen from you. I cringe a little when i see the the way that some of my fellow saints have replied to you.That said, let me answer this as respectfully as I can. The Hindu metaphor you gave is clever, but would only be relevant if we were discussing theists in general. We are discussing Christianity here and Hindus don't profess the Messiah or claim their salvation through his grace. We do and you do.It is not being clever, it is how I see it, so only expressing what I see via metaphor.We could split hairs about specific requirements of belief or practice (and that is what this discussion usually comes to) but we must understand that language is not a precise thing. In fact we all speak an idiolect that is unique to ourselves. Words mean what their speakers mean and also what their hearers interpret. These are not always the same thing.The differences are much larger than a hair, more like, a tree is being split. Language is important, I agree, LDS having redefined nearly every Christian word and phrase to something different than what Christians believe. Including the word "Salvation". We aren't speaking of the same thing when we both use that one word.If you want to define Christian as a person who believes in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as a singular substance only rather than as a singular Authority, then you are welcome to do so, but that doesn't change what the word describes to the rest of us.I don't define God as a substance.
Pahoran Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 Pahoran, no doubt, I see that the majority of LDS members seek to follow Christ. However, Mormonism itself is not a Christian religion.Yes it is."Mormonism" is, by any impartial measure, Christian. See Peterson and Ricks, Offenders for a Word.It's very foundation is a claim to something other than what has been handed on as Christian belief and understanding.No. It is not.I acknowledge that you have been very polite in the way you have tried to rob us of our birthright; but speaking only for myself, I find substance more important than style.Which is to say that politeness or impoliteness is less significant than the fact that the robbery was attempted.Regards,Pahoran
saemo Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 What do you mean "omnipresent"? It seems it would not matter if God were omnipresent if I did not exist. So can you explain how God knew anyone before they existed...and on what grounds He chose anyone?Where were we before the foundations of the world?Omnipresent and omniscient, both attributes of God.Omnipresent, defined as everything is present to God at all times.Omniscient, do you have to exist in order for the One Who Created you to know you?Nothing is hidden from God.We weren't anywhere before the foundation of the world. You are created at the moment of your conception, body and spirit. The foundation of the world is not a requirement of God's omniscience and omnipresence, if I'm understanding what you're meaning. (?)
saemo Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) Yes it is."Mormonism" is, by any impartial measure, Christian. See Peterson and Ricks, Offenders for a Word.No. It is not.I acknowledge that you have been very polite in the way you have tried to rob us of our birthright; but speaking only for myself, I find substance more important than style.Which is to say that politeness or impoliteness is less significant than the fact that the robbery was attempted.Regards,PahoranI think it is very clear that I offend you just by existing, so it is what is Pahoran. I certainly am not out to please you and I'm not going out of my way to offend you. *shrug*I haven't robbed you of anything. Your birthright is the same as everyone's. Christ died for all.You seem to want to diminish the belief I have, what I see, that Mormons seek Christ. I don't see this as something less, something lost, or something undesirable. I see it as Good, as a gift from God.It is not politeness that I seek, but charity, and it would not be charitable for me to say to you, "you have what God desires for you", when you don't. Truth is much more important than that. Seeking Jesus Christ is seeking Truth itself, so it is, Mormons are on the same journey as all Christians. I believe that God judges us, and will judge many non-Christians to be in Heaven with Him. That is the inheritance you should seek, not the approval of anyone, including myself. Edited October 4, 2011 by saemo
etana Posted October 4, 2011 Posted October 4, 2011 The differences are much larger than a hair, more like, a tree is being split. Language is important, I agree, LDS having redefined nearly every Christian word and phrase to something different than what Christians believe. Including the word "Salvation". We aren't speaking of the same thing when we both use that one word.So, by your reasoning, you would have to assert that we don't believe in Salvation either? Do you see how this might be detrimental to a useful dialog?I don't define God as a substance.Didn't say that you did.I don't pretend to know exactly how you perceive God (although you have been eloquent in your descriptions and i would agree with most of them--more than you might suspect). I suspect we all have our own understanding that we nurture in the interest of drawing nearer and that it is more unique than our own languages. Nevertheless, God is One, however we might imagine Him or interpret that "oneness".
Flyonthewall Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Omnipresent and omniscient, both attributes of God.Omnipresent, defined as everything is present to God at all times.Omniscient, do you have to exist in order for the One Who Created you to know you?Yes, unless we are simply pre-progammed to order.Nothing is hidden from God.We weren't anywhere before the foundation of the world. You are created at the moment of your conception, body and spirit. The foundation of the world is not a requirement of God's omniscience and omnipresence, if I'm understanding what you're meaning. (?)What I was getting at is that in order for us to be chosen before the foundation of the world, we have to exist. How can something that doesn't exist, be chosen?Unless you are saying that since everything is present to God, we too are present at all times with God? If so, then we have no beginning either.
The King's Servant Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 Are you saying that if it was God's intent to make us gods he could not do it? How would God be prevented from this? This position always confuses me when I hear or read it; the fundamental acceptance that God can do everything, but make man like him. As if it was too difficult or impossible for the God the universe to do. It is no a logical position.God is God, and a creature is a creature. God is eternal, a creature has a beginning and an end. God alone is immortal. God can impart to us eternal life, contingent upon our belief in His Son, Christ Jesus. Creatures cannot impart eternal life, they are dependent always upon the Creator.
altersteve Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) God is God, and a creature is a creature. God is eternal, a creature has a beginning and an end. God alone is immortal. God can impart to us eternal life, contingent upon our belief in His Son, Christ Jesus. Creatures cannot impart eternal life, they are dependent always upon the Creator.Except for the "God alone is immortal" part and implying that human beings are mere "creatures" instead of literal children of God, no Latter-day Saint would disagree with anything you said here. Edited October 5, 2011 by altersteve
Jesterss Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) Except for the "God alone is immortal" part and implying that human beings are mere "creatures" instead of literal children of God, no Latter-day Saint would disagree with anything you said here.But God alone is immortal... If he so chose, he could destroy anything and everything... Omnipotent.. We should fear God.. One shouldn't be so boastful as to think they are worthy of receiving eternal life... It is not by your demand or faith, it is by God's will and judgement ultimately.. So yes, God alone is immortal...I understand what you mean, because God does have an eternal immortal plan already conceived about Jesus and anyone who believes in him and jesus.. but don't let arrogance overtake your fear of God being omnipotent.. I think the ultimate understanding is what King Servant was saying.. not what we know his plans are with those who are true believers..edit: on second read that sounds like preaching so let me add some references...Fear GodLeviticus 25:17Deuteronomy 4:10Deuteronomy 6:13Deuteronomy 10:121 Samuel 12:242 Kings 17:39+many more...OmnipotentJeremiah 32:17Matthew 19:26Job 42:2Revelation 19:6+more Edited October 5, 2011 by Jesterss
altersteve Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 But God alone is immortal... If he so chose, he could destroy anything and everything... Omnipotent.. We should fear God.. One shouldn't be so boastful as to think they are worthy of receiving eternal life... It is not by your demand or faith, it is by God's will and judgement ultimately.. So yes, God alone is immortal...I understand what you mean, because God does have an eternal immortal plan already conceived about Jesus and anyone who believes in him and jesus.. but don't let arrogance overtake your fear of God being omnipotent.. I think the ultimate understanding is what King Servant was saying.. not what we know his plans are with those who are true believers..No, God alone is not immortal. We are all immortal, in some sense. Immortal means to live forever; and our spirits are all able to live forever. And why are you assuming that I don't believe God is omnipotent?That said, I do not fear God; meaning, I am not "afraid" of Him. I see no reason to be. I love God. Fear plays no part in my relationship with Him.
Calm Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 No, God alone is not immortal. We are all immortal, in some sense. Immortal means to live forever; and our spirits are all able to live forever. And why are you assuming that I don't believe God is omnipotent?That said, I do not fear God; meaning, I am not "afraid" of Him. I see no reason to be. I love God. Fear plays no part in my relationship with Him. "Fear" also has the meaning of "reverential awe" and in that sense LDS are taught to 'fear' God.
altersteve Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 "Fear" also has the meaning of "reverential awe" and in that sense LDS are taught to 'fear' God.I totally understand and agree with that, and I do "fear God" in that sense, but I generally don't use that phrase. It's not that I'm uncomfortable with it, it's just that loving God is a more powerful way of saying it in my opinion.
Jesterss Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 No, God alone is not immortal. We are all immortal, in some sense. Immortal means to live forever; and our spirits are all able to live forever. And why are you assuming that I don't believe God is omnipotent?We are not all immortal.. CFR that we are all immortal... we are only immortal if God so chooses to let us become immortal.. but we are not given immortality from birth, it is something we earn... And I don't assume that you don't believe it, I'm just stating that God is the only true judge, creator or destroyer, as will be the case for those who are not believers in him, they will be eternally destroyed, therefore, not immortal.. I'm not saying that there will not be more immortals or that there aren't already, but if God so chose to change anything, he could.. and would be the only true immortal.. he is above all in that aspect.. more of an understanding that he is omnipotent and it's only out of his kindness and love for anything and anyone that we or anything can become immortal, they are gifts, not birth rights.. That said, I do not fear God; meaning, I am not "afraid" of Him. I see no reason to be. I love God. Fear plays no part in my relationship with Him.Just because you love him, that does not mean you can't fear him.. already addressed by calmoriah and agreed upon so I won't expand.. but I still think you regard your love as more than you should fear..
Calm Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) I totally understand and agree with that, and I do "fear God" in that sense, but I generally don't use that phrase. It's not that I'm uncomfortable with it, it's just that loving God is a more powerful way of saying it in my opinion.I prefer the use of "awe" as there is less confusion with the cringing, diminishing type of fear which I think the Lord would prefer us to grow out of in relation to him. Edited October 5, 2011 by calmoriah
Jesterss Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 I prefer the use of "awe" as there is less confusion.would have to agree with this
altersteve Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) We are not all immortal.. CFR that we are all immortal... we are only immortal if God so chooses to let us become immortal.. but we are not given immortality from birth, it is something we earn...Eternal life is something we earn. Immortality is guaranteed to all of us. There is a difference between the two (see Moses 1:39).And I don't assume that you don't believe it, I'm just stating that God is the only true judge, creator or destroyer, as will be the case for those who are not believers in him, they will be eternally destroyed, therefore, not immortal..They'll still exist, just not with Him; they won't have eternal life (i.e., life with God). They won't simply pop out of existence.I'm not saying that there will not be more immortals or that there aren't already, but if God so chose to change anything, he could.. and would be the only true immortal.. he is above all in that aspect.. more of an understanding that he is omnipotent and it's only out of his kindness and love for anything and anyone that we or anything can become immortal, they are gifts, not birth rights..We don't "become immortal," we are immortal, or at least our spirits are. Once again, Latter-day Saints make a distinction between eternal life and immortality; the difference between the two is huge. Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin explained it very well:http://lds.org/new-e...l-life?lang=engJust because you love him, that does not mean you can't fear him.. already addressed by calmoriah and agreed upon so I won't expand.. but I still think you regard your love as more than you should fear..I've already explained my POV regarding this. See post #341. Edited October 5, 2011 by altersteve
Jesterss Posted October 5, 2011 Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) Eternal life is something we earn. Immortality is guaranteed to all of us. There is a difference between the two (see Moses 1:39).They'll still exist, just not with Him; they won't have eternal life (i.e., life with God). They won't simply pop out of existence.We don't "become immortal," we are immortal, or at least our spirits are. Once again, Latter-day Saints make a distinction between eternal life and immortality; the difference between the two is huge. Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin explained it very well:http://lds.org/new-e...l-life?lang=engAll LDS references. Which is fine, just means we are going to disagree with fundamental ideas. Which will be off topic... So agreed to disagree on those doctrines for the sake of this topic..my point is just that King's idea was simply that God is the supreme omnipotent being which is not denied by both parties..and in being that, he holds the only true title of being one who possesses omnipotence, which in turn, allows him to make the stipulations for anything and everything, including us, and had he not made the promise to those of us who believe in him to receive immortality, we would not... so therefore, it is only available to us, because of him, nothing that we possess of ourselves, but of a gift given by him.. which in this latter aspect we will disagree based on doctrinal foundations.. I believe that we are not given immortality until judgement day.. but as noted will be a tangent to this thread topic.. Edited October 5, 2011 by Jesterss
Flyonthewall Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 If God is omnipotent as you say, and can destroy anything at His will, then it is by His will that Satan and his followers exist....otherwise He would have rid the universe of him long ago.Furthermore, if, as I have heard others say, the wicked will spend an eternity in Hell full of pain and suffering, instead of simply being winked out of existance...what kind of picture is this painting?
HeatherAnn Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) If God is omnipotent as you say, and can destroy anything at His will, then it is by His will that Satan and his followers exist....otherwise He would have rid the universe of him long ago.Furthermore, if, as I have heard others say, the wicked will spend an eternity in Hell full of pain and suffering, instead of simply being winked out of existance...what kind of picture is this painting?Good points!God created everything... including the advesary, especially since "there must be opposition in all things."God also created us that have & will continue to have, until death... a degree of wickedness...Although I know we have choice, I believe that choice is limited to a range of possibilities.Considering those we admire or despise - we must remember that if we were in their shoes, we'd be more likely to be thinking, feeling & behaving like they are.So... the intent behind sinning is unique with each individual... & God knows each heart.Heaven & hell are subjective in life... maybe it's all subjective, spiritually after life?Or... could we just melt back into a huge one-ness... like the analogy of a wave who thinks it's separate from the ocean? Edited October 6, 2011 by HeatherAnn
Ares Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 All LDS references. Which is fine, just means we are going to disagree with fundamental ideas. Which will be off topic... So agreed to disagree on those doctrines for the sake of this topic..You should expect LDS references and assumptions on the "Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board".
Mudcat Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 All our word are material based. Even "immaterial" is using "material" to describe a unknowable concept. Even as Mudcat has pointed out, "nothing" is using "thing" to describe a concept.Vance,My point was that your usage of the word "nothing" was meaningless given your position that "immaterial" is meaningless. BTW.. you never responded to it. I will try to be more clear on why I think this business about material vs immaterial is without any real meaning.LDS relate their belief in spiritual matter to faith claims. This posited "spiritual matter" can not be scientifically observed by any reliable means I have ever heard of. In short, LDS believe there are things all about the place made of "spiritual matter" including a portion of ourselves, yet there is no evidence to indicate such. This sort of matter is unobservable by natural means.LDS also seem to believe that Holy Spirit is singularly made of this specific sort of matter and somehow acts like a radio transmitter of the Gospel Truth. Yet these emanations are equally without observation by natural means.Though there is no proof this stuff actually exists. LDS like yourself are content to believe in unobservable and undetectable sorts of matter yet ridicule the usage of "immaterial" by someone who sees things differently.LDS claims are compounded with another issue. If the spirit is material then it should observe physical laws. A spirit that got to close to a black hole would be sucked in without escape. The Holy Spirits messages would also be lost in such a place. Spirits couldn't levitate or just randomly appear. If any of those things were possible for spirits, then there would be a different set of principles that applied to them and such principles would be just as unobservable as "spirit matter" is.LDS believe there are things made of matter they can't prove.Most other Christians believe there are things that exist that don't require material to exist.LDS actually hold the harder claim IMO.Mudcat 1
Recommended Posts