Being Like God

[TAO]

I know that some people criticize the LDS church for believing in a god who was once man and who therefore once sinned. Is this an accurate assessment from the LDS point-of-view? It seems to logically follow. If all men sin, and God was once a man, then God at one point sinned. I suppose the only way around it I can see is if God, when he was a man, was sinless like Jesus Christ. Or perhaps, from the LDS point-of-view, it doesn't really matter if God sinned before or not. Thanks for your insights!

It's not exaclty doctrine (it's in the King Follet Discourse, which isn't taught in church). But, things do tend to lean that way, yes, you would be right. God would be the epitome, the example of what we need to aim for. Unless, as you said, he was like Christ, and sinless, in which case, we still need to aim for what he wants, we just won't have had a similar mortal experience in the case of sinning.

Edited October 31, 2012 by TAO

[TAO]

But, from the Mormon point-of-view, has anyone other than Jesus Christ been sinless?

Possibly. It's more folklore... we don't know how long the 'cycle' has been going on, or even if there has been a cycle. We know there will be a cycle in the future; that's the point of life; to become like God is, to have his virtues, and serve him as a grateful steward. All of the things we do, in that state, will be of him also. In other words, we may rise up to become like him, but he will always be above us =).

[TAO]

I never asked whether, in the LDS view, someone could live a perfect life and not accept the atonement. I was trying to ask whether, in LDS teaching, whether Jesus's suffering in Gethsemane was also for the perfectly sinless and in what way (if such human beings can exist in the LDS view).

Jesus's atonement was for all those who sin, yes. But also, Jesus suffered for physical ailments, so he would know how to succor his people. I don't know of many who have not experienced an ailment in this life; though there may be some infants, and such.

In any case, I'm a confident, that when it's all over, it will be clear to us that Jesus is our Savior, and that he loves us so very much.

[Damien the Leper]

Maybe it would help you if instead of using the word "God" you used the phrase "a person who is a perfectly good person".

Would you honestly say you have no desire to be a person who is a perfectly good person? That's what God (our Father in heaven) is.... regardless of what kind of ontological being he is.

Maybe it would also help you if instead of thinking of what God says to do as a "command", thinking of it as counsel to become as he is. It's not like he's saying: To be evil, you need to do such and such. When he's telling us to do things he's telling us to do those things because those are the things he would do, or not do, based on the kind of person he is. He wouldn't steal, so he tells us not to stel. He also wouldn't commit adultery, so he tells us not to commit adultery. All of the things he tells us to do are good, and he tells us those things because he can see that at least some people need to know what he knows.

Being selfish and greedy isn't good, and he has told us not to be that way. It's the people who refuse to accept his counsel, because they don't think it is good, who are causing all of the problems in this world. This would be a much better place if everyone would simply do everything God tells us to do, even though some people don't think so, which is why we are having to learn the hard way.

Obviously some people are choosing to rebel against what you call the "natural human instinct", otherwise we wouldn't be having so many problems.

As Plato stated, "To know the good is to do the good". Perfection is a false ideal. There's nothing to be gained or learned from "perfection". Humanity is born with the mental capacity of knowing right from wrong. Ethics and morals are not divinely instituted. They simply are and they simply exist without creation.

[Ahab]

As Plato stated, "To know the good is to do the good".

Ah, if only it were that easy. Many people know the good and still don't do it. It's not as easy as Plato seemed to think.

Perfection is a false ideal. There's nothing to be gained or learned from "perfection".

Perfection is the end result of having already learned everything. At some point, if you keep learning, you too will know everything. It's a logical conclusion that will inevitably result unless for some reason you stop learning about things.

Humanity is born with the mental capacity of knowing right from wrong.

I think you mean good from evil, and that "mental" capacity is actually coming from our spirit connecting with what we in the Church refer to as the light of Christ. I'm not exactly sure how we get it from him but that's where, or who, it comes from. We learn from people, including God and Satan, rather than just automatically knowing everything or what there is to learn.

Ethics and morals are not divinely instituted. They simply are and they simply exist without creation.

Ethics and morals are things people consider to be good, whatever they consider to be good. What some people consider to be good isn't necessarily good as far as God is concerned, though. God knows more about things that are good than all of us combined, and to the extent we know something is good God also knows that too because he's already learned everything there is to learn. What God does, though the light of Christ and direct revelation to us, is to share what he knows with us. There's no good reason for anyone to try to shut him out. We should all compare notes and see how much more we can still learn from God about himself and all other things.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Ahab

[Tacenda]

I like the non LDS Christian view....that we were born in sin, because of Eve's decision because she listened to Satan and followed him, by choosing to come to his kingdom instead of staying in HF's kingdom, the garden. And they very well could have skipped the ungodly earth life and stayed with our HF and raised a family, it doesn't say they cannot bear children in the garden anywhere does it? But they left HF's world to go with Satan. HF needed to come down in physical form to save them. I don't think that God would want to play mind games and tell them not to partake of the fruit of the tree and yet want them to. To my LDS bro & sis this sounds so opposite of what we've been taught, I know. And I thought the same way, but have never been taught it this way and am now looking at things with a different perspective since my faith was challenged and now in search of answers. The view of being born in sin, makes one so grateful for a Savior because we wouldn't be able to live with God had the Savior not appeared, we'd live with Satan and his angels on earth forever, possibly....this sounds crazy saying this as an LDS person, I know. Just looking outside the LDS box but not exactly "for sure" on anything.

[Spammer]

If humans are already divine beings who merely choose to sin, and some are able through force of will to choose to never sin, from age 8 until death, then a Savior and a substitutionary atonement (a price in blood) are completely unnecessary. God can just choose to automatically save those who choose not to sin and reward everyone else based on their actions. Why create an eternal plan requiring the violent death of your firstborn son in order to excuse the crimes of those who aren't perfect? As the lawgiver, why not just decree to automatically save those who live morally perfect lives and be lenient to those who try their best and are basically decent folks? God can choose to be merciful and forego justice on a case by case basis, can't he? God is our dad, right? I do the same thing with my kids. There's no need to sacrifice my innocent firstborn (assuming he's perfect) just so I can justly allow my other kids to remain in my presence. If my kids are repentant and make amends, then great! They get to move back in. The LDS idea of eternal divine intelligences and the LDS (and traditional Protestant, penal/substitutionary) view of the atonement makes no sense. What a capricious, uncaring God that is, who expects moral perfection by his children who can't even see or have a face to face conversation with him, and then punishes an innocent to satisfy his own laws of justice.

I'm with Tacenda. The ancient, eastern (pre-Augustine) Christian idea of a fallen world in need of redemption is much better and truly preserves the notion that God is love. God did not incarnate to be punished in place of those who deserve punishment (what an ugly, medieval view), but to restore mankind and all of creation to its original, glorified state. God became man so that, by entering his creation, mingling divine with material, dying as part of the cosmos and resurrecting, he could transform matter, divinizing it, and reconciling it to himself. God became man so that man could become god. God's life heals; his blood heals, the same theology as that found within the ancient Day of Atonement rites in the first temple in Jerusalem. Christ, the Logos Incarnate, our Great High Priest, gave his life to save us humans and to restore us to our rightful place as anointed priests (men and women both - the royal priesthood), able to stand before God in the holy of holies (in the church (called a temple in the east), where the altar is located), receiving the Divine Logos in the Eucharist, mingling the matter in our bodies with the divine, then going out into the world to minister to the cosmos, by using our minds and wills to transform matter through the work of our hands, bringing out what is hidden in God within each material object, creating beauty thereby in whatever we touch. Each of us, like God, being a point at which spirit breaks through to mingle with matter, works with God to transform and heal. That's a much better view of the atonement, IMO, in keeping with the truth that God is love.

[Edit: I added a few additional things to clarify my thoughts.]

Edited October 31, 2012 by Spammer

[MiserereNobis]

If humans are already divine beings choosing to sin, and some are able through force of will to choose to never sin, from age 8 until death, then a Savior and a substitutionary atonement are completely unnecessary. God can just choose to save those who choose not to sin and reward everyone else based on their actions. Why create an eternal plan requiring the violent death of your firstborn son? As the lawgiver, why not just decree to automatically save those who live morally perfect lives and be lenient to those who try their best and are basically decent folks? God can choose to be merciful and forego justice on a case by case basis, can't he? God is our dad, right? I do the same thing with my kids. There's no need to sacrifice my innocent firstborn (assuming he's perfect) just so I can justly allow my other kids to remain in my presence. The LDS idea of eternal divine intelligences and the LDS (and traditional Protestant, penal/substitutionary) view of the atonement makes no sense. What a capricious, uncaring God that is, who expects moral perfection by his children who can't even see or have a face to face conversation with him, and punishes an innocent to satisfy his own laws of justice.

I'm with Tacenda. The ancient, eastern Christian idea of a fallen world in need of redemption is much better and truly preserves the notion that God is love. God did not incarnate to be punished in place of those who deserve punishment (what an ugly, medieval view), but to restore mankind and all of creation to its original, glorified state. God became man so that, by entering his creation, mingling divine with material, dying as part of the cosmos and resurrecting, he could transform matter, divinizing it, and reconciling it to himself. God's life heals; his blood heals, the same theology as that found within the ancient Day of Atonement rites in the first temple in Jerusalem. Christ, the Logos Incarnate, our Great High Priest, gave his life to save us humans and to restore us to our rightful place as priests (men and women both - the royal priesthood) ministering to the cosmos, by using our minds and wills to transform matter, bringing out what is hidden in God within each material object. Each of us, like God, being a point at which spirit breaks through to mingle with matter, working with God to transform and heal. That's a much better view of the atonement, IMO, in keeping with the truth that God is love.

Yes, the traditional view of the atonement seems to fit more squarely with the unbelievable depth of God's love and mercy. God incarnated in order to heal humanity from its self-inflicted wound. He didn't have to, but He loved us enough and was merciful enough that He chose to, despite the fact that it required Him to descend below all things and suffer an ignominious death on the cross. It still boggles my mind that the eternal God, the Creator and Lord of the universe, chose to suffer crucifixion in order to redeem us, to redeem me.

What love. What mercy. What ultimate goodness. Let us praise His name forever.

[Ahab]

I like the non LDS Christian view....that we were born in sin, because of Eve's decision because she listened to Satan and followed him, by choosing to come to his kingdom instead of staying in HF's kingdom, the garden.

That's pretty much the LDS perspective, too, or at least it could be depending on what you mean by "born in sin". This is a world pretty much filled with sin, or sinful people, and when we are born here we are born in sin, in that sense. Just because we're born here doesn't mean we have committed a sin by being born here or by anything we have done up to that point, though. A sin is something someone does when they know the difference between good and evil and they choose to do the evil thing anyway, while they know better, which is what makes what they are doing a sin. A newborn baby doesn't know the difference between good and evil, though, and it's not something that just comes automatically, without God's help. Little kids can do bad things but it's not until later that they know that evil is. Until then they just think something is "bad" when it's something they don't like, or someone else tells them not to do, and what someone doesn't like isn't necessarily evil.

And they very well could have skipped the ungodly earth life and stayed with our HF and raised a family, it doesn't say they cannot bear children in the garden anywhere does it?

They didn't know about children, then. Our Father placed a block on their minds so they didn't remember much if anything about what they saw and learned in the Celestial kingdom so to them what they saw in the garden was all there was. How do you think they would have learned about children, or having children? They didn't have knowledge of good and evil yet, so how do you suppose they would have learned either the good or evil acts involved in what it would take to produce children? They apparently didn't think much about the one of the opposite sex running around naked. They were mentally like little children, running around in a garden. I don't think we should think they would have just "figured it out" without gaining the knowledge of good and evil. .

But they left HF's world to go with Satan. HF needed to come down in physical form to save them.

Actually, he sent his son, Jesus, to save all of us. Jesus is a lot like HF, and maybe even pretty much exactly like him, but they are 2 distinct persons.

And they didn't actually choose to "go with Satan". Satan just deceived Eve and Adam decided to go with her.

I don't think that God would want to play mind games and tell them not to partake of the fruit of the tree and yet want them to.

He didn't really want them to gain knowledge of evil, because he knows and knew how having knowledge of evil things could corrupt them, but he did want them to gain knowledge of what is good, even at the expense of gaining knowledge of evil, but only if it was their choice to take that step. A parent usually wants to protect their child, right? It was that kind of conundrum. How would he protect them, and yet allow them to learn? It would have to be their own choice while he taught them to do only what was good for them, and it would have been good had they never gained knowledge of evil, except that they would also not gain knowledge of good. Just like we learn now, they needed to learn the difference by learning the opposites.

If only he had a made a tree where they could have gained knowledge of good without also gaining knowledge of evil, but I suppose that just wasn't possible.

To my LDS bro & sis this sounds so opposite of what we've been taught, I know. And I thought the same way, but have never been taught it this way and am now looking at things with a different perspective since my faith was challenged and now in search of answers. The view of being born in sin, makes one so grateful for a Savior because we wouldn't be able to live with God had the Savior not appeared, we'd live with Satan and his angels on earth forever, possibly....this sounds crazy saying this as an LDS person, I know. Just looking outside the LDS box but not exactly "for sure" on anything.

Musing can help. Just check with God before you decide what to believe because Satan can be very sneaky.

I fear you may greatly underestimate his sneakiness.

[Ahab]

If humans are already divine beings who merely choose to sin, and some are able through force of will to choose to never sin, from age 8 until death, then a Savior and a substitutionary atonement (a price in blood) are completely unnecessary.

Can choosoe to do that doesn't mean they will choose to do that, though. There needed to be what you might think of as a "backup" plan. For those who live their life perfectly without sin, fine, in you go back into the Celestial kingdom. For those who messed up, what? No cookies for you!?! Ever?!?

God can just choose to automatically save those who choose not to sin and reward everyone else based on their actions.

Why not allow some to sort of "make up" for their sins, if they repent. Repentance is like getting to do a do over, or what is called a mulligan in golf. It's the "proxy" aspect of the atonement which makes the repentance part possible. You repent and Jesus will use his atonement to cover your sins. Sounds like a great plan to me. Of course, you'll need to repent, but why would you want to keep on sinning anyway? A sin is a bad thing. We shouldn't want to do something bad.

Why create an eternal plan requiring the violent death of your firstborn son in order to excuse the crimes of those who aren't perfect?

The violent death thing wasn't necessarily required for the atonement to work. Jesus lived a perfect life, and then some people chose to kill him for that. That's what happened. And yes, I know, Jesus could have performed a miracle to save himself, but since he was mortal he was in a condition where he could have been killed and where he would have died of natural causes due to his mortal body at some point anyway.

As the lawgiver, why not just decree to automatically save those who live morally perfect lives and be lenient to those who try their best and are basically decent folks?

That's how the plan works now. Those who try their best to live a good life stop doing bad things instead of keep doing them. They're essentially repenting, and those who repent are covered by the atonement of Jesus Christ.

God can choose to be merciful and forego justice on a case by case basis, can't he?

Nope. If he did he wouldn't be a just God which would mean he would have different rules for different people. As it is now the same law applies to everyone, with no exceptions, and he couldn't have figured out a better plan. This plan is the best one that could have been thought of, by anyone, including our Father.

God is our dad, right?

Right.

I do the same thing with my kids.

You do what with your kids? You forgive some even though they do not repent? You consider those who stop doing bad things to be just as good as those who keep doing bad things? Really? You don't sound like a very good Dad to me, if that's what you do. Your job is to teach them and help them to grow into being good people, and they can't be good if they keep doing bad things without ever stopping. A mulligan is the best thing you can give them, but they should at least show you that they want a mulligan and they should keep swinging until they get the ball into the hole.

There's no need to sacrifice my innocent firstborn (assuming he's perfect) just so I can justly allow my other kids to remain in my presence.

Jesus would have lived as our Father wanted him to live no matter where he was sent. It's not his fault that some people wanted to kill him for that.

If my kids are repentant and make amends, then great! They get to move back in.

Same idea, but I'd rather build them a house in the same neighborhood, or general area. Can you imagine how cramped it would be with all of the good children of our Father in heaven living in the same house?

The LDS idea of eternal divine intelligences and the LDS (and traditional Protestant, penal/substitutionary) view of the atonement makes no sense.

You obviously just don't understand it, correctly. Once you do you'll see it as the best plan there could possibly be, for the good of all children.

What a capricious, uncaring God that is, who expects moral perfection by his children who can't even see or have a face to face conversation with him, and then punishes an innocent to satisfy his own laws of justice.

Our Father in heaven didn't kill Jesus. Please get that fact straight in your head. It was a lot of bad kids of our Father who chose to kill Jesus, and they're going to get justice in the end.

I think I'm done here. In fact today is the last day for me to write on this board. Goodbye all.

[MiserereNobis]

I think I'm done here. In fact today is the last day for me to write on this board. Goodbye all.

Fare thee well and God bless!

[Ahab]

Fare thee well and God bless!

It is Halloween, you know. Trick or treat? Sound familiar? I'm guessing you thought it was a treat.

[MiserereNobis]

It is Halloween, you know. Trick or treat? Sound familiar? I'm guessing you thought it was a treat.

Oh, no, you've combined April Fools and Halloween!

[Ahab]

Oh, no, you've combined April Fools and Halloween!

Tricky, huh.

[Calm]

Oh, no, you've combined April Fools and Halloween!

That combo has danger written all over it.

Off to trick or treat with the grand kids. Just got to decide if the purple wings go or not.

[Damien the Leper]

Ah, if only it were that easy. Many people know the good and still don't do it. It's not as easy as Plato seemed to think.

It was never meant to be easy. Plato wasn't speaking in an absolute mindset. Plato was appealing to man's natural conscience.

Perfection is the end result of having already learned everything. At some point, if you keep learning, you too will know everything. It's a logical conclusion that will inevitably result unless for some reason you stop learning about things.

Perfection, as I stated is a false idea. Perfection is not essential and is definitely inconsequential.

I think you mean good from evil, and that "mental" capacity is actually coming from our spirit connecting with what we in the Church refer to as the light of Christ. I'm not exactly sure how we get it from him but that's where, or who, it comes from. We learn from people, including God and Satan, rather than just automatically knowing everything or what there is to learn.

Right/wrong, good/evil, whatever. The point still stands. Our humanity, as it is disconnected from any divine source, is the root and foundation of our conscience. We are born with the ability to differentiate right from wrong or good from evil. It is as natural as someone being born with brown hair or blue eyes or ten toes. It simply is and will always be.

Ethics and morals are things people consider to be good, whatever they consider to be good. What some people consider to be good isn't necessarily good as far as God is concerned, though. God knows more about things that are good than all of us combined, and to the extent we know something is good God also knows that too because he's already learned everything there is to learn. What God does, though the light of Christ and direct revelation to us, is to share what he knows with us. There's no good reason for anyone to try to shut him out. We should all compare notes and see how much more we can still learn from God about himself and all other things.

Again, it is not about God. It's about humans.

[Ahab]

It was never meant to be easy. Plato wasn't speaking in an absolute mindset. Plato was appealing to man's natural conscience.

Plato apparently didn't understand what the conscience was, and is, and just knowing what is good doesn't mean the one who knows will do it.

Perfection, as I stated is a false idea.

You're wrong. You're the one sharing a false idea now, about this. Perfection is possible and inevitable as I stated.

Perfection is not essential and is definitely inconsequential.

Just look at what's coming out of your mind because of the things you don't know now.

If you knew better, would you do better? I don't know, but if I knew everything I would know that and maybe someday I'll have that answer along with the answer to everything else. It is possible that I'll advance to that point.

Right/wrong, good/evil, whatever. The point still stands. Our humanity, as it is disconnected from any divine source, is the root and foundation of our conscience. We are born with the ability to differentiate right from wrong or good from evil. It is as natural as someone being born with brown hair or blue eyes or ten toes. It simply is and will always be.

Again, it is not about God. It's about humans.

You still don't understand or believe the truth that we are the same kind of being as our Father in heaven. God/human, whatever you call us, we are the same kind of being even though at this point we are not as advanced or developed as he is. It is possible, though. I'm looking forward to seeing if I, and you, will make it.

[TAO]

If humans are already divine beings who merely choose to sin, and some are able through force of will to choose to never sin, from age 8 until death, then a Savior and a substitutionary atonement (a price in blood) are completely unnecessary.

The atonement isn't only there to cover sin. It's also there to cover physical death.

God can just choose to automatically save those who choose not to sin and reward everyone else based on their actions.

Of course he could. But he loves us more than that. He wants to give us who made mistakes the chance to get back too.

Why create an eternal plan requiring the violent death of your firstborn son in order to excuse the crimes of those who aren't perfect?

Death isn't the end of things. It's just the beginning of a new journey. This life is the time for man to prepare to meet God. And to serve him.

As the lawgiver, why not just decree to automatically save those who live morally perfect lives and be lenient to those who try their best and are basically decent folks?

Because we'd view that as unjust. How lenient is lenient? Why are some sins ignored, and not others? It would be rather arbitrary.

God can choose to be merciful and forego justice on a case by case basis, can't he?

Not without ruining justice. There is some verses in 2nd Nephi and Alma on the subject; about God needing to be a just God to be our God.

God is our dad, right? I do the same thing with my kids. There's no need to sacrifice my innocent firstborn (assuming he's perfect) just so I can justly allow my other kids to remain in my presence.

To God, who sees past death, is death such a bad thing?

If my kids are repentant and make amends, then great! They get to move back in.

And what if they aren't repentant, and don't make ammends?

Here's a small example. Your son knocks over your precious vase onto the floor. He apologizes, you forgive him. Who covers the monetary cost? You.

There is a price for sin just like there is a price for a precious vase. The price is repentance and pain on the part of the Savior.

The LDS idea of eternal divine intelligences and the LDS (and traditional Protestant, penal/substitutionary) view of the atonement makes no sense. What a capricious, uncaring God that is, who expects moral perfection by his children who can't even see or have a face to face conversation with him, and then punishes an innocent to satisfy his own laws of justice.

Here's what the Book of Mormon has to say on it:

And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

And you can have a face-to-face conversation with God. All it takes is enough faith, and God to will it to be.

It kinda seems like you seem to not understand punishment from the LDS perspective. Don't you remember... you are punished according to your knowledge of right and wrong. If you don't know or understand, you are innocent; you cannot be punished for such. You recieve for the law that you lived by, the law which was your guide. That means, for us LDS, the bar is very high indeed. It is why we truly need to listen to God and the Holy Spirit for guidance. Because without it, we won't live up to the law we have been given.

I'm with Tacenda. The ancient, eastern (pre-Augustine) Christian idea of a fallen world in need of redemption is much better and truly preserves the notion that God is love.

And why is the Earth inevitably fallen? Could not God forget that, as you have asked, could he not forget a little sin? We come to the same problem in your perspective that you see in mine; God has rules he holds to, and he will not break them, for that would make things not turn out the way they are supposed to; according to the Book of Mormon, he wouldn't be God if he didn't hold to these rules. As to why that is, I don't know; that's somethign I don't have knowledge on yet. I'll know eventually I suppose.

God did not incarnate to be punished in place of those who deserve punishment (what an ugly, medieval view), but to restore mankind and all of creation to its original, glorified state.p

Well then why did God suffer? No, God did not arbitrarily punish his son. He did what had to be done.

God became man so that, by entering his creation, mingling divine with material, dying as part of the cosmos and resurrecting, he could transform matter, divinizing it, and reconciling it to himself. God became man so that man could become god. God's life heals; his blood heals, the same theology as that found within the ancient Day of Atonement rites in the first temple in Jerusalem. Christ, the Logos Incarnate, our Great High Priest, gave his life to save us humans and to restore us to our rightful place as anointed priests (men and women both - the royal priesthood), able to stand before God in the holy of holies (in the church (called a temple in the east), where the altar is located), receiving the Divine Logos in the Eucharist, mingling the matter in our bodies with the divine, then going out into the world to minister to the cosmos, by using our minds and wills to transform matter through the work of our hands, bringing out what is hidden in God within each material object, creating beauty thereby in whatever we touch. Each of us, like God, being a point at which spirit breaks through to mingle with matter, works with God to transform and heal. That's a much better view of the atonement, IMO, in keeping with the truth that God is love.

Hmmm... judging from what you've said, I don't think you clearly see the LDS view of the atonement clearly, to be honest. Do you understand the plan of salvation, and what it is, and why it is necessary?

Best of WIshes,

-TAO

[Damien the Leper]

Plato apparently didn't understand what the conscience was, and is, and just knowing what is good doesn't mean the one who knows will do it.

You're wrong. You're the one sharing a false idea now, about this. Perfection is possible and inevitable as I stated.

Just look at what's coming out of your mind because of the things you don't know now.

If you knew better, would you do better? I don't know, but if I knew everything I would know that and maybe someday I'll have that answer along with the answer to everything else. It is possible that I'll advance to that point.

You still don't understand or believe the truth that we are the same kind of being as our Father in heaven. God/human, whatever you call us, we are the same kind of being even though at this point we are not as advanced or developed as he is. It is possible, though. I'm looking forward to seeing if I, and you, will make it.

This discussion is going nowhere. We have gotten to the point where we're talking passed each other. Neither of us is going to concede. Our approaches are too different. I have no desire for redemption, salvation or exaltation. If this earns me a place in ghe pit then so be it. I'm no longer allowing myself to be either ecclesiasticaslly or spiritually bullied by any church's authorities/representatives or scripture or even God himself. My life and existence aren't about him anymore. I'm moving on and he should do the same.

[Ahab]

This discussion is going nowhere. We have gotten to the point where we're talking passed each other. Neither of us is going to concede. Our approaches are too different.

I've heard you, and I think we're closer than you realize.

I have no desire for redemption, salvation or exaltation.

I think you do, you just have a strange concept of what those terms are referring to. You don't really want to do what you consider to be bad, do you? You don't really want to suffer, do you? If you could live the best life you could imagine you would take the opportunity, wouldn't you? I'm not talking about way out in the distance, in some other place. I'm talking about living in the here and now while enjoying all of the best things there are to be enjoyed. You'd like that, wouldn't you? If not, why wouldn't you?

If this earns me a place in ghe pit then so be it. I'm no longer allowing myself to be either ecclesiasticallly or spiritually bullied by any church's authorities/representatives or scripture or even God himself. My life and existence aren't about him anymore. I'm moving on and he should do the same.

I don't mean to bully you, and I won't say anymore now. There are others who can explain what it means to live a "good" life while thinking it is not a bad thing.

[Ramil Torres]

many Gods means polytheism

[Calm]

You need to have longer posts of substance if you want people to engage in conversation with you.

[Nathair/|\]

many Gods means polytheism

And?

[RadioFreeDeath]

many Gods means polytheism

Actually, not necessarrily. Polytheism is the WORSHIP of many Gods. I suppose you can expand it to belief but thats watering down the meaning.

[Ahab]

many Gods means polytheism

What do you call it when more than one person is God, though... say, for example, when 3 persons are God?