I Am Not A Christian

[Calm]

ignorant deception.

Deception is generally understood to be intentional.

And if the accuser has demonstrated an inaccurate perception of that which he is criticizing and has been told so quite a few times by actual believers, I think he should be reluctant to assigned disingenuousness to others.

Edited July 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

Deception is generally understood to be intentional.

And if the accuser has demonstrated an inaccurate perception of that which he is criticizing and has been told so quite a few times by actual believers, I think he should be reluctant to assigned disingenuousness to others.

Ignorant self deception.

[coolrok7]

[coolrok7 post #115]. . .Mormonism I think in some instances doesn’t fit the Biblical/Evangelical language. He can be a Mormon all he wants but Mormonism based on what I know doesn’t equate to Biblical teaching at critical points of doctrine. . . .”

[Calmoriah post #117]So what I get from all of this is because he didn't say things the way you thought they should be said, he was being disingenuous....even if perhaps he understood either his own faith (quite likely) or the Evangelical language (also quite likely) differently than you do. [he doesn’t speak for me as I don’t speak for him- I added this point here because I often quote Mormon material to back up the points I’m making]

[Calmoriah #117]I have no issue with saying that some of us use the language in the wrong way, but to assume someone who is doing this is being disingenuous (which is defined as intentional deception) may be a false accusation unless one has heard them use it properly at other times.

[bikeemikey post #118]It's because we as Mormons use words imbued with fundamentally different definitions in the evangelical context and then often argue that the meanings are really the same.

[Calmoriah #119]I have no issue with saying that some of us use the language in the wrong way, but to assume someone who is doing this is being disingenuous (which is defined as intentional deception) may be a false accusation unless one has heard them use it properly at other times.

[bikeemikey post #120]Your right rather than engaging in intentional deception they may be engaging in ignorant deception.

Either way they should be told to stop.

I agree with Bikeemikey on the point he made. I also have no problem with being corrected when applicable.

The basic issue is with Biblical teaching/doctrine. Anakin7 is quite familiar with Evangelical terms in which it is disingenuous (based on my listening to him in context) for him to talk like he does concerning Mormonism which is not just an assumption on my part.

In the opening of this thread, Anakin7 is explaining concerning an Evangelical’s response to the message on Anakin’s shirt:

. . .An evangelical Christian approached me who I believed works nearby who saw me wearing the shirt and asked "what does that mean ?" [in reference to the " My Master" statement on my shirt]. I told him that Jesus Christ was - The LORD OF LIFE/LORD/Redeemer/Saviour/God/King and Master. I boldly told him I was a member of the Church Of Jesus christ of Latter Day Saints. He immediatly told me we had a different Jesus because we do not believe he is Eternal. . .

The following is probably (an assumption on my part as I have not talked with this person, only what Anakin7 said concerning him) what the Evangelical had in mind when he said what he did (in reference to the “different Jesus because Mormonism does not teach he is “Eternal” in the Biblical sense of “from everlasting to everlasting thou art God” note the use of “another” and “different” in these two Bible versions):

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4, KJV)

But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4, NASB)

Whether one uses “different” or “another” the view is that the Mormon Jesus born to heavenly parents and the Biblical Jesus, born to a Virgin named Mary as a man in which He pre-existed as God in the Godhead, not born as a spiritual being but was a spiritual being, are ultimately different although the language used appears to be similar:

. . .The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worships a God and a Jesus Christ with bodies, with parts, and with passions. We also believe that the trinity of the Godhead is made up of three separate personages—God, the Eternal Father; Jesus Christ, the Son of God—our Savior; and the Holy Ghost. These two concepts of the Trinity and their attributes are completely different. (The Ensign, Elder Bernard P. Brockbank, May 1977)

Jesus Christ did have a body (the Bible doesn’t teach that the Father does as Mormonism teaches) for the purpose of what is stated below:

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (Hebrews 2:7-17)

Those not Mormon in general and specifically here are considered heretical as well as being an “apostate religion” in a church proselytizing pamphlet):

I wonder how many of us are aware of one of the great religious phenomenon of the ages, one that is now sweeping through Protestant Christianity, as only one other thing has ever done in the whole Christian Era. . . .let me first identify the original heresy that did more than anything else to destroy primitive Christianity.

This first and chief heresy of a now fallen and decadent Christianity- and truly it is the father of all heresies-. . .pertains now to the nature and kind of being that God is. . . .a spirit essence called the Trinity. . . .The adoption of this false doctrine about God effectively destroyed true worship among men and ushered in the age of universal apostasy. . . .

This second heresy-and it is the prevailing delusion and mania that prevails to this day in the great evangelical body of Protestantism-is the doctrine that we are justified by faith alone, without the works of the law. . . .It is the doctrine that we may be born again simply by confessing the Lord Jesus with our lips while we continue to live in our sins.” (Bruce R. McConkie, BYU Devotional, 1984)

Following the death of the apostles, revelation ceased. The authority of God was no longer among men. Christianity sickened and died. In time, a new religion grew up in its place—a religion that professed to be Jesus Christ’s Church, but which in reality was a conglomerate of pagan worship and Greek philosophy, “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”. . .that eventually led to the complete apostasy of the true church and the eventual creation of an apostate religion that has been responsible for the extermination of the Messiah’s true followers and the persecution of his chosen people, the Jews. . . . (APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.9)

What Mormonism teaches is “completely different” because it is not the Biblical teaching as it is only referring to the physical form of Jesus (not God the Father) in which He now exists since the incarnation as announced by Gabriel:

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:30-35)

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: (Colossians 2:6-10)

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:1-2)

Anakin7 is really familiar with how Evangelicals argue their points, especially with what the Evangelical probably meant in the distinction in his use of the term “eternal” (or as it states here, “everlasting”):

Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. (Psalm 90:1-2)

There is a distinct difference in an Evangelical’s view of God as always existing with no beginning vs. the Mormon G(g)od as an eternal progression of gods.

It is inexcusable then in my perspective (based on what he knows as I’ve heard him say for years at ZLMB/here) for him to argue the way he did at the Mariner meetings which is what I was pointing out.

I also had stated that (post #115):

Based on what I heard him saying at the time (you would have had to have been there to understand as it would be hard to explain it), I didn’t think he was justified in making his points (my perspective) the way he did concerning Mormonism using Evangelical verbiage which ultimately has different meaning behind the terminology used.

Mormons are of course at liberty to reject the teaching but not to distort the Biblical teaching on given points of doctrine:

calmoriah, on 07 July 2013 - 11:58 AM, said [post #126]:

Deception is generally understood to be intentional.

And if the accuser has demonstrated an inaccurate perception of that which he is criticizing and has been told so quite a few times by actual believers, I think he should be reluctant to assigned disingenuousness to others.

[bikeemikey responded post #127]Ignorant self deception.

I explained the context for me using the term “disingenuous” as you weren’t there to hear as to how/what he was arguing for.

Stop attacking the poster instead of what he is saying if you want to stay in the thread.

[Anakin7]

What has Athens to do with Jerusalem ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Anakin7]

Still shutting up the Kingdom of Heaven To LDS/Mormons while having Beams in there own eyes and trying to cast stones at us. Have they checked there own House [ The Lutheran one of which coolrok resides in ] ?. I Love Lutherans [ Of which cool is a member of from what I remember ] and have met a # in the past who are fine christians who puy LDS in the hetrodox part of the kingdom of heaven [Christian but need to reject several doctronal beliefs].My resent encounter with 2 Southern Baptist Ministers from seperate churches/cities were refreshing to there view of the possibility of seeing some LDS in Heaven and that there is only one judge who will allow them to enter.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited July 8, 2013 by Anakin7

[Anakin7]

From memory I remember explaining [ Using a non LDS scholarly language of LDS Doctrine and beliefs ] That we adhere to an Anchient/Monarch/Eastern/Economic/Social/Godhead/Trinty. Am I a non Christian LDS for believing that ?, that is is in ones own heart /mind to decide but before doing that has one must examined there own beliefs/faith that is criticized to be non christian/biblical by others critical of there faith from there own house to honestly see that they are in the faith.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited July 8, 2013 by Anakin7

[mfbukowski]

The next time an EV tells you that we worship a different God, tell them they are right.

We worship the God of the Bible- our Father who has a body, parts and passions, and they worship a god invented by pagan Greek Neoplatonists which is based on word games, like three persons in one "Substance" whatever that is supposed to mean.

That should convert them right on the spot.

[mfbukowski]

From memory I remember explaining [ Using a non LDS scholarly language of LDS Doctrine and beliefs ] That we adhere to an Anchient/Monarch/Eastern/Economic/Social/Godhaed/Trinty. Am I a non Christian LDS for believing that ?, that is is in ones own heart /mind to decide but before doing that has one must examined there own beliefs/faith that is criticized to be non christian/biblical by others critical of there faith from there own house to honestly see that they are in the faith.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Not bad - but see what happens when you try to use THEIR convoluted terminology? Your tongue gets tied in knots!

[Vance]

The next time an EV tells you that we worship a different God, tell them they are right.

We worship the God of the Bible- our Father who has a body, parts and passions, and they worship a god invented by pagan Greek Neoplatonists which is based on word games, like three persons in one "Substance" whatever that is supposed to mean.

That should convert them right on the spot.

I am still waiting for one of them to show me the Biblical basis for their "immaterial" God.

[mfbukowski]

I am still waiting for one of them to show me the Biblical basis for their "immaterial" God.

Oh they can show you the basis for it, you just have to look at the Greek philosophers to find it:- Parmenides and Plato are good starting places.

[mfbukowski]

Oh and anticipating the objection that God has no body in the bible, of course we have Moses seeing his back, Jacob wrestling with the angel and seeing God "face to face" Stephen seeing Christ on the "right hand" of God, God's audible voice at Jesus' baptism, and some other passages I don't recall at the moment.

Of course these are subject to interpretation, but that cuts both ways, doesn't it?

[Spammer]

A point of clarification. Both neoplatonists and creedal trinitarians posit a God who is Prime Mover (Plotinus's 'The One', the Monad), but that's where the similarity ends. Greek neoplatonists believed that God and matter are co-eternal and that creation proceeded through a series of emanations that worked on pre-existing material. This is the foundation of gnosticism, not creedal Christianity. For a time, elements of Neoplatonism did influence the Alexandrian church through Origen (namely, Origen's notions of pre-existent material and pre-existent souls), but in the end Origen's neoplatonist contributions were deemed heretical. The Church rejected neoplatonism's positing of a single, vast, eternally-existing system of hierarchically-ordered entities and emanations, and instead maintains belief in ex nihilo and in the distinction between the transcendent and material realms. Christian ex nihilo doctrine and the notion of an utterly transcendent, immaterial deity are not grounded in neoplatonism. These different groundings lead to radically different spiritualities. The god of the neoplatonists can be known through contemplation and purification of concepts. Neoplatonism's god is the God of the philosophers; this is not the God of ancient creedal Christianity. This notion of knowing through refinement of concepts is deemed heretical in the ancient Christian church, particularly within the Eastern branch where God is believed to be knowable only because He has revealed Himself to us. God bridged the abyss between the transcendent and material realms in the person of Jesus. There is no such abyss in neoplatonism.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Regarding God as a space alien, I've often thought that it must theoretically be possible to hop in a spacecraft and visit God - assuming God has a body with parts and resides somewhere within the universe. I was about to say that someone needs to write a sci fi story like that, then I remembered that horrible Star Trek V movie. Theoretically, such a journey is possible, since God is material and has a body (he's a man). Assuming such a spacecraft were invented, would God erect some kind of barrier or force field to prevent our ship from penetrating into His space, to the world on which He dwells? Or would he welcome us with open arms?

[mfbukowski]

Questions for EV's who want to play word games:

Did God create everything? - yes-

Did God create eternity? (time)? - if "yes"- then what was he doing before time/eternity? (if he is eternal, he is therefore limited by one of his own creations)

If "no"- if God did not create time/eternity then God did not create all things and is not omnipotent.

Our answer to both: God created our world's time reference when he organized our world, but his time reference is on a much larger scale, since he has created many worlds.

So yes God is "eternal" in our time reference for all we can know about Him, but not necessarily in his own time reference. Hence the word "eternal" is highly ambiguous

True understanding of the gospel requires us to move beyond simple categories and word games, and to be guided by the spirit continually

[mfbukowski]

A point of clarification. Both neoplatonists and creedal trinitarians posit a God who is Prime Mover (Plotinus's 'The One', the Monad), but that's where the similarity ends.

The very term "Neoplatonism" was invented to describe Plotinus' philosophy.

Mormons do not believe in a "Prime Mover". If you want to put us into Greek philosophical categories, we more represent the views of Heraclitus who believed that everything is in a constant change and flux and has been eternally. In his scheme, it makes no sense to think of a Prime Mover because everything is already "in motion" and has been eternally.

For more on this type of theology today see this site, among others: http://www.ctr4process.org/

Edited July 8, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

A point of clarification. Both neoplatonists and creedal trinitarians posit a God who is Prime Mover (Plotinus's 'The One', the Monad), but that's where the similarity ends. Greek neoplatonists believed that God and matter are co-eternal and that creation proceeded through a series of emanations that worked on pre-existing material.

So how did they see God as the "Prime Mover" if there was already pre-existing material which was co-eternal with God?

I tend to avoid such discussions because I think they seem to be based on the reification of category errors, so I never get into the details, but this seems like such a blatant contradiction that it might be interesting to discuss.

[Spammer]

The very term "Neoplatonism" was invented to describe Plotinus' philosophy.

Mormons do not believe in a "Prime Mover". If you want to put us into Greek philosophical categories, we more represent the views of Heraclitus who believed that everything is in a constant change and flux and has been eternally. In his scheme, it makes no sense to think of a Prime Mover because everything is already "in motion" and has been eternally.

For more on this type of theology today see this site, among others: http://www.ctr4process.org/

Thanks for this. Interesting! We've all been debating these issues for millenia and we're still no closer to resolving anything -- through philosophy. I'm with you when you note the critical importance of being guided by the spirit continuously.

[Spammer]

So how did they see God as the "Prime Mover" if there was already pre-existing material which was co-eternal with God?

I tend to avoid such discussions because I think they seem to be based on the reification of category errors, so I never get into the details, but this seems like such a blatant contradiction that it might be interesting to discuss.

Yes, as I understand it it was the perception of that blatant contradiction (beginning with a priori acceptance of the Prime Mover) that led to the Church's eventual rejection of Philo, Plotinus, and Origen and acceptance of ex nihilo. I don't know all of the dates, names, and parties. It seems contradictory to me, as well. It seems Plotinus thought that matter was one of the emanations out of the primal reality of the One, following the prior emanation of the agent of creation (Plato's demiurge), although I think the emanations are not thought in this system to be sequenced in time, but as all emanates from the primal unity all is coeternal with that unity. That about exhausts my knowledge of neoplatonism. Such that it is. Again, strange stuff (to a traditional Christian) and much more in line with gnostic cosmology.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

I just present this out of wikipedia to compare to the God of the Bible- for all to see for themselves if this is compatible with the Bible.

This is about Plotinus, the founder of "Neoplatonism".

One

See also: Substance theory

Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent "One", containing no division, multiplicity or distinction; beyond all categories of being and non-being. His "One" "cannot be any existing thing", nor is it merely the sum of all things [compare the Stoic doctrine of disbelief in non-material existence], but "is prior to all existents". Plotinus identified his "One" with the concept of 'Good' and the principle of 'Beauty'. [i.6.9]

His "One" concept encompassed thinker and object (of thought alike dyad). Even the self-contemplating intelligence (the noesis of the nous) must contain duality. "Once you have uttered 'The Good,' add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency." [iII.8.11] Plotinus denies sentience, self-awareness or any other action (ergon) to the One [V.6.6]. Rather, if we insist on describing it further, we must call the One a sheer Dynamis or potentiality without which nothing could exist. [iII.8.10] As Plotinus explains in both places and elsewhere [e.g. V.6.3], it is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God. At [V.6.4], Plotinus compared the One to "light", the Divine Nous (first will towards Good) to the "Sun", and lastly the Soul to the "Moon" whose light is merely a "derivative conglomeration of light from the 'Sun'". The first light could exist without any celestial body.

The One, being beyond all attributes including being and non-being, is the source of the world—but not through any act of creation, willful or otherwise, since activity cannot be ascribed to the unchangeable, immutable One. Plotinus argues instead that the multiple cannot exist without the simple. The "less perfect" must, of necessity, "emanate", or issue forth, from the "perfect" or "more perfect". Thus, all of "creation" emanates from the One in succeeding stages of lesser and lesser perfection. These stages are not temporally isolated, but occur throughout time as a constant process. Plotinus here resolves the issues between Plato's ontology and Aristotle's Actus et potentia. The issue being that Aristotle, through resolving Parmenides' Third Man argument against Plato's forms and ontology created a second philosophical school of thought. Plotinus here then reconciles the "Good over the Demiurge" from Plato's Timaeus with Aristotle's static "unmoved mover" of Actus et potentia. Plotinus does this by making the potential or force (dunamis) the Monad or One and making the demiurge or dyad, the action or energy component in philosophical cognitive ontology. Later Neoplatonic philosophers, especially Iamblichus, added hundreds of intermediate beings as emanations between the One and humanity; but Plotinus' system was much simpler in comparison.

The One is not just an intellectual conception but something that can be experienced, an experience where one goes beyond all multiplicity.^[8] Plotinus writes, "We ought not even to say that he will see, but he will be that which he sees, if indeed it is possible any longer to distinguish between seer and seen, and not boldly to affirm that the two are one."^[9]

Emanation by the One

Plotinus offers an alternative to the orthodox Christian notion of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), which attributes to God the deliberation of mind and action of a will, although Plotinus never mentions Christianity in any of his works. Emanation ex deo (out of God), confirms the absolute transcendence of the One, making the unfolding of the cosmos purely a consequence of its existence; the One is in no way affected or diminished by these emanations. Plotinus uses the analogy of the Sun which emanates light indiscriminately without thereby diminishing itself, or reflection in a mirror which in no way diminishes or otherwise alters the object being reflected.

The first emanation is Nous (Divine Mind, logos or order, Thought, Reason), identified metaphorically with the Demiurge in Plato's Timaeus. It is the first Will toward Good. From Nous proceeds the World Soul, which Plotinus subdivides into upper and lower, identifying the lower aspect of Soul with nature. From the world soul proceeds individual human souls, and finally, matter, at the lowest level of being and thus the least perfected level of the cosmos. Despite this relatively pedestrian assessment of the material world, Plotinus asserted the ultimately divine nature of material creation since it ultimately derives from the One, through the mediums of nous and the world soul. It is by the Good or through beauty that we recognize the One, in material things and then in the Forms.^[10]

The essentially devotional nature of Plotinus' philosophy may be further illustrated by his concept of attaining ecstatic union with the One (henosis see Iamblichus). Porphyry relates that Plotinus attained such a union four times during the years he knew him. This may be related to enlightenment, liberation, and other concepts of mystical union common to many Eastern and Western traditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus#Major_ideas

Certainly he was right about "ecstatic union", but again, the words get in the way. He saw all this as a product of his education in Greek Philosophy

Edited July 8, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for this. Interesting! We've all been debating these issues for millenia and we're still no closer to resolving anything -- through philosophy. I'm with you when you note the critical importance of being guided by the spirit continuously.

It's really all we have. The trouble starts when we try to put it into words. But of course, that is itself a philosophical position. Everytime we open our mouths, philosophy comes out. So eliminating it is an illusion.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, as I understand it it was the perception of that blatant contradiction (beginning with a priori acceptance of the Prime Mover) that led to the Church's eventual rejection of Philo, Plotinus, and Origen and acceptance of ex nihilo. I don't know all of the dates, names, and parties. It seems contradictory to me, as well. It seems Plotinus thought that matter was one of the emanations out of the primal reality of the One, following the prior emanation of the agent of creation (Plato's demiurge), although I think the emanations are not thought in this system to be sequenced in time, but as all emanates from the primal unity all is coeternal with that unity. That about exhausts my knowledge of neoplatonism. Such that it is. Again, strange stuff (to a traditional Christian) and much more in line with gnostic cosmology.

Well the whole idea of ex nihilo presupposes a "nihilo" that everything was "ex". That ain't Heraclitus, I can tell you that!

[Bikeemikey]

Regarding God as a space alien, I've often thought that it must theoretically be possible to hop in a spacecraft and visit God - assuming God has a body with parts and resides somewhere within the universe. I was about to say that someone needs to write a sci fi story like that, then I remembered that horrible Star Trek V movie. Theoretically, such a journey is possible, since God is material and has a body (he's a man). Assuming such a spacecraft were invented, would God erect some kind of barrier or force field to prevent our ship from penetrating into His space, to the world on which He dwells? Or would he welcome us with open arms?

Maybe the second coming is backwards... It's us going to him.

[Vance]

Oh they can show you the basis for it, you just have to look at the Greek philosophers to find it:- Parmenides and Plato are good starting places.

Yup!! But I was asking for the BIBLICAL basis, which, both you and I know, does NOT exist.

[mfbukowski]

Yup!! But I was asking for the BIBLICAL basis, which, both you and I know, does NOT exist.

Well they do have this:

John 4:24

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth

But that does not imply immateriality unless you buy into the whole dualistic idea of "Ideas" (or forms or philosophically, "universals") as being somehow immaterial.

You need an additional premise in there to conclude that the sentence "God is a Spirit" makes God "immaterial" EVEN IF the phrase is translated correctly.

And as LDS, all we have to do is understand the phrase as saying "God is a Soul" instead of "spirit" to have it mean, as Joseph defined the word "soul", a body united with a spirit.

Certainly that was a common usage of the term in the 19th century and before where phrases like "100 souls perished when..." were used to describe some disaster- clearly the word soul was not synonymous with spirit as it now often is.

Edit:

But we also have this: Luke 24:39

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

With all the previous verses I quoted earlier, this just shows that, surprise surprise, the Bible contradicts itself. Moses saw God's back, and Jacob saw him face to face, yet he doesn't have flesh and bones.

So clearly the Bible leaves the issue, as always, being subject to interpretation

Edited July 9, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

Well they do have this:

John 4:24

But that does not imply immateriality unless you buy into the whole dualistic idea of "Ideas" (or forms or philosophically, "universals") as being somehow immaterial.

You need an additional premise in there to conclude that the sentence "God is a Spirit" makes God "immaterial" EVEN IF the phrase is translated correctly.

And as LDS, all we have to do is understand the phrase as saying "God is a Soul" instead of "spirit" to have it mean, as Joseph defined the word "soul", a body united with a spirit.

Certainly that was a common usage of the term in the 19th century and before where phrases like "100 souls perished when..." were used to describe some disaster- clearly the word soul was not synonymous with spirit as it now often is.

So yes, I know of no phrase in the Bible which clearly says that God is immaterial.

Yeah, Bowman tried to use that one too. The problem they have is that the same Greek word (pneuma) that is translated to the English word "spirit" is the same Greek word used to mean "breathe" and/or "wind", both of which are material.