harfad Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 Agreed. That is because we cannot seem to get out of the morbid ancient literal Bible thinking, and we pretend to know that they experienced objective reality and that is why there is still relevance today of holding onto the Bible views, which are not unified and coherent anyway. But we overlook that to feed our own biases about the "realities" the Bible depicts. We still have the mindset that if the Bible says so, it must be so, or else have really happened the way it is depicted.You seem to be ignoring the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. Not sure if that was intentional or unintended.
harfad Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 I think we should view ancient Biblical stories as the religious history of a people. Not necessarity as a literal history.I don't see why religious history cannot be literal.
harfad Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 More like religious stories. I mean they weren't even put down in writing until the Babylonian captivity many thousands of years after Adam.... there is simply no way to have known anything of what happened for that first few thousand years by those people. It is from their 585 B.C. point of view on every subject they chose to write about. And they obviously ignored whole hosts of things that they didn't feel were pertinent, but is part of the Ancient Near Eastern history. This isn't history, its mythologized story telling. There is precious little that is factual from any kinds of physical investigations of the O.T. these days, the archaeologists have literally taken down piece by piece anything of the story or the supported history of the William F. Albright/Frank Moore Cross, Jr., paradigm. Archaeology and history simply doesn't fit what we have in the Old Testament.28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God. (2 Nephi 9:28-29)
harfad Posted November 4, 2012 Posted November 4, 2012 Disasters are caused by geological considerations.For example, some areas of the world are not subject to earthquakes as they are not in prome locations, likewise with hurricanes.The idea that God uses these events to punish the wicked would need to first follow the idea that God causes the wicked to want to live in locations prone to such events...It just doesn't make sense.It is true that God has made world in such a way that certain parts of it appear to be prone to certain types of natural phenomena like earthquakes, huricanes, tornados, floods, tsunamies etc. But that does not mean that such phenomena occur at random, without a divine involvement.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 “Prepare yourselves for the great day of the Lord: for if I, who am a man, do lift up my voice and call upon you to repent, and ye hate me, what will ye say when the day cometh when the thunders shall utter their voices from the ends of the earth, speaking to the ears of all that live, saying: Repent, and prepare for the great day of the Lord; yea, and again, when the lightnings shall streak forth from the east unto the west, and shall utter forth their voices unto all that live, and make the ears of all tingle, that hear, saying these words: Repent ye, for the great day of the Lord is come. And again, the Lord shall utter his voice out of heaven, saying: Hearken, O ye nations of the earth, and hear the words of that God who made you. O, ye nations of the earth, how often would I have gathered you together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but ye would not?How oft have I called upon you by the mouth of my servants, and by the ministering of angels, and by mine own voice, and by the voice of thunderings, and by the voice of lightnings, and by the voice of tempests, and by the voice of earthquakes, and great hailstorms, and by the voice of famines and pestilences of every kind, and by the great sound of a trump, and by the voice of judgment, and by the voice of mercy all the day long, and by the voice of glory and honor, and the riches of eternal life, and would have saved you with an everlasting salvation, but ye would not? Behold, the day has come, when the cup of the wrath of mine indignation is full. Behold, verily I say unto you, that these are the words of the Lord your God; wherefore, labor ye, labor ye in my vineyard for the last time: for the last time call upon the inhabitants of the earth, for in my own due time will I come upon the earth in judgment; and my people shall be redeemed and shall reign with me on earth…” – Latter Day RevelationYes, God can speak through these natural phenomenon. Mike SandersBook of Mormon BelieverIndpendence, MOLooks like the LDS D&C 43:20b-29 = RLDS D&C 43:5e-7b
Robert F. Smith Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) There is no such thing as a natural disaster caused by God.God is, by definition, a supernatural being. Anything He causes to occur is a supernatural event.So, no God does not cause natural disasters to punish people. He masks supernatural events as natural disasters to serve whatever purposes He may have.Now then, having masked a supernatural event as a natural disaster, it seems rather fruitless to try and unmask that which God has masked unless and until He does so through His prophet.Yes, in normative Judeo-Christian tradition, God is a supernatural being and uncaused cause. He is the necessary prime mover who exists outside of time. And we are all contingent creatures fully dependent on Him. If there is any evil, that makes Him fully responsible for it.In LDS theology there is nothing supernatural. God is part of, and obedient to the laws of the universe (or multiverse). He has fully mastered nature and is compassionate toward us -- less well developed coeternal beings who have necessary existence and free agency. His desire and glory is to bring to pass our eternal life and exaltation, and He has formulated a wonderful plan to accomplish that goal -- mediated through His priesthood. Edited November 5, 2012 by Robert F. Smith 2
Robert F. Smith Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Disasters are caused by geological considerations.For example, some areas of the world are not subject to earthquakes as they are not in prome locations, likewise with hurricanes.The idea that God uses these events to punish the wicked would need to first follow the idea that God causes the wicked to want to live in locations prone to such events...It just doesn't make sense.You didn't read my words very carefully. Go back and take another look. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 I believe in an omniscient/omnipotent God who is fully in charge of his own creation. Nothing happens by chance, and he is never surprised by anything.Some people think that never being surprised might get boring. Others suggest that random occurrence is a fact demonstrated by Quantum Theory. That doesn't prove that God doesn't know the future in toto, but the notions of omniscience and omnipotence seem fully alien to LDS theology. Perhaps you could expand on your notion here. 2
harfad Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 In LDS theology there is nothing supernatural. God is part of, and obedient to the laws of the universe (or multiverse). He has fully mastered nature ...I am LDS, and I don't recognize these as necessary LDS doctrines. They are somebody's opinions unsupported by LDS revelation.
harfad Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Some people think that never being surprised might get boring.Those people are not God!Others suggest that random occurrence is a fact demonstrated by Quantum Theory.When Quantum Theory is canonized I will incorporate it into Mormon theology.That doesn't prove that God doesn't know the future in toto, but the notions of omniscience and omnipotence seem fully alien to LDS theology. Perhaps you could expand on your notion here.According to Mormon scripture God is both omnipotent and omniscient.
Robert F. Smith Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 According to Mormon scripture God is both omnipotent and omniscient.Would you deign to discuss this notion with us? Are you saying, for example, that God is so powerful that he can create a rock which he can't lift? Is heads I win tails you lose a fair proposition? 2
thesometimesaint Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 More like religious stories. I mean they weren't even put down in writing until the Babylonian captivity many thousands of years after Adam.... there is simply no way to have known anything of what happened for that first few thousand years by those people. It is from their 585 B.C. point of view on every subject they chose to write about. And they obviously ignored whole hosts of things that they didn't feel were pertinent, but is part of the Ancient Near Eastern history. This isn't history, its mythologized story telling. There is precious little that is factual from any kinds of physical investigations of the O.T. these days, the archaeologists have literally taken down piece by piece anything of the story or the supported history of the William F. Albright/Frank Moore Cross, Jr., paradigm. Archaeology and history simply doesn't fit what we have in the Old Testament.Oral history is a lot older than written history. That fact doesn't make that history any less "real". It just makes it harder to prove.
thesometimesaint Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 I don't see why religious history cannot be literal.It can be. But that argument doesn't help truth claims. Ancient Troy existed, but that doesn't mean that the Greek Gods are literal.
thesometimesaint Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Science does not guarantee anything. Only God can.I am interested only in discussing the subject in the context of religion.Name me one natural thing/event that science doen't guarantee? Which God must scientists worship.?Which religion protected the dinosaurs for the asteroid that destroyed them?
harfad Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Would you deign to discuss this notion with us? Are you saying, for example, that God is so powerful that he can create a rock which he can't lift? Is heads I win tails you lose a fair proposition?That is a question for the school playground. It is not the meaning of omnipotrnce in theology, and is unworthy of serious discussion.
harfad Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Name me one natural thing/event that science doen't guarantee? Which God must scientists worship.?Science is the body of discovered truth. It does not guarsntee anything.Which religion protected the dinosaurs for the asteroid that destroyed them?We don't know when the dinasaurs lived or how thry died; but if it was an asteroid that killed them, it would have been an act of God.
harfad Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Name me one natural thing/event that science doen't guarantee? Which God must scientists worship.?Science is the body of discovered truth. It does not guarsntee anything.Which religion protected the dinosaurs for the asteroid that destroyed them?We don't know when the dinasaurs lived or how thry died; but if it was an asteroid that killed them, it would have been an act of God.
thesometimesaint Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Science is the body of discovered truth. It does not guarsntee anything.We don't know when the dinasaurs lived or how thry died; but if it was an asteroid that killed them, it would have been an act of God.Science is about establishing facts about the natural world(universe).The dinosaurs lived from about 230 million years ago and died out about 65 million years ago.No it wasn't an act of God. It was a natural event. Edited November 5, 2012 by thesometimesaint
CV75 Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) According to Mormon scripture God is both omnipotent and omniscient.Power and knowledge are rooted in, or at least co-operative, with faith. So He is omni-faithful (or Self-assured) too. Faith, power and knowledge operate in a balance with each other. Which comes first? Edited November 5, 2012 by CV75
thesometimesaint Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 I have faith that I'll someday have the other two.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Some people think that never being surprised might get boring. Others suggest that random occurrence is a fact demonstrated by Quantum Theory. That doesn't prove that God doesn't know the future in toto, but the notions of omniscience and omnipotence seem fully alien to LDS theology. Perhaps you could expand on your notion here.Then why did Joseph Smith himself, none other, pray to the Almighty maker of heaven and earth, the omnipotent, omniscient Jehovah God? Charles R. Harrell, "This is My Doctrine, The Development of Mormon Theology" shows that Joseph Smith understood God in classical Christian terms for a VERY LONG time.......p. 174-175, a prayer of Joseph Smith's also found in the History of the Church 5: 127. Here Joseph Smith was quite clear about the kind of God he was praying to. I know we love to distance ourselves from the classical Christian God, but Joseph Smith didn't.
Tacenda Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Then why did Joseph Smith himself, none other, pray to the Almighty maker of heaven and earth, the omnipotent, omniscient Jehovah God? Charles R. Harrell, "This is My Doctrine, The Development of Mormon Theology" shows that Joseph Smith understood God in classical Christian terms for a VERY LONG time.......p. 174-175, a prayer of Joseph Smith's also found in the History of the Church 5: 127. Here Joseph Smith was quite clear about the kind of God he was praying to. I know we love to distance ourselves from the classical Christian God, but Joseph Smith didn't.Totally agree with this. There is a Mormonstories podcast where Charles R. Harrell is interviewed about this book.
altersteve Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Then why did Joseph Smith himself, none other, pray to the Almighty maker of heaven and earth, the omnipotent, omniscient Jehovah God? Charles R. Harrell, "This is My Doctrine, The Development of Mormon Theology" shows that Joseph Smith understood God in classical Christian terms for a VERY LONG time.......p. 174-175, a prayer of Joseph Smith's also found in the History of the Church 5: 127. Here Joseph Smith was quite clear about the kind of God he was praying to. I know we love to distance ourselves from the classical Christian God, but Joseph Smith didn't.Like the rest of us, Joseph Smith's understanding of God changed and developed over time. That's painfully obvious and I don't see why it's a problem. Edited November 5, 2012 by altersteve 3
Tacenda Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Like the rest of us, Joseph Smith's understanding of God changed and developed over time. That's painfully obvious and I don't see why it's a problem.As the first vision has, why did JS change over time? The BofM was more Non LDS Christian oriented than now after the changes were made. Was JS a fallen prophet? No one knows, but these changes are a problem for some. Edited November 5, 2012 by Tacenda
Walden Posted November 5, 2012 Posted November 5, 2012 Science does not guarantee anything. Only God can.I am interested only in discussing the subject in the context of religion.I am interested only in discussing the subject in the context of religion.....maybe that is why you cannot fathom that natural events occur outside the realm of God's control, and/or that they can easily be explained by the laws of science and thus, there is no need for any divine explanation or intervention.If you view the world exclusively through the "context of religion," then of course, everything in your view will have religious significance.
Recommended Posts