Canadaigua Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 And you base this assumption on what? The fact that we all sin and are incapable of keeping the commandments. Go ahead and tell me what Biblical commandment you have never broken.
Canadaigua Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 You guys are so funny. First you fabricate the false "creator", "creature" dichotomy. And then you have to jump through all sorts of logical hoops, contortions and distortions to show that Jesus breached that false dichotomy. Why not just give up that false dichotomy in the first place?Perhaps you can expound on what you are saying because it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Canadaigua Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Doctrine is official teachings. Modern revelation that comes through general conference has never changed doctrine, it has interpreted doctrine. If modern LDS prophets do not ever change doctrine and their words are not official doctrine then why claim to have a prophet?
sheilauk Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I don't think you are capable of obeying any of them.i presume that what you mean is that at any time it is possible that a person could be tempted to break any of the commandments and no one can obey all of them perfectly. We all of us obey some or all of the commandments some or all of the time ( when did you last steal or kill?). But pretty much all of us will break a commandment (or two or more) at some time. That is not the same as saying a person is incapable of obeying the commandments ( at any time) which comes across as quite insulting. 1
Canadaigua Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Was Jesus not God and a man?I am sure you see the difference but I will point it so others may notice it as well. Joseph Smith said that God has not always been God. Christianity teaches that God has always been God.
Flyonthewall Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 The fact that we all sin and are incapable of keeping the commandments. Go ahead and tell me what Biblical commandment you have never broken.I have never killed anyone. I have never committed adultery, or made any graven image to worship. I have not had any other gods before God. You keep thinking that if we cannot keep the commandments perfectly, we cannot keep any of them, which is FALSE! 3
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) The fact that we all sin and are incapable of keeping the commandments. Go ahead and tell me what Biblical commandment you have never broken. Since joining the Church I have never broken any of the Ten Commandments. Does that mean I'm God the Father? Edited January 17, 2015 by thesometimesaint 1
ERayR Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 The fact that we all sin and are incapable of keeping the commandments. Go ahead and tell me what Biblical commandment you have never broken. Multiply and replenish - 12 kidsand a lot of grand children and great grand children. 1
Bobbieaware Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 This thread is beginning to become a prime example of Einstein's definition insanity. 1
StJude Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 I am sure you see the difference but I will point it so others may notice it as well. Joseph Smith said that God has not always been God. Christianity teaches that God has always been God.St. Thomas Aquinas would argue this point based on philosophy. Everything in motion has to have a mover. For example, the tree moves because the wind is blowing, you were put in to motion by your conception, etc. There has to be an unmoved mover (God). Otherwise, it would go on and on infinitely and that is impossible. Something has to be there that has been there and is unmoved to put everything else in to motion.The LDS teaching that god was once a man who became god of his own world falls into the infinite repetition. The mainstream Christain view is that of an unmovable God.The other way he would argue it is efficient cause. Meaning everything has a cause but there had to be a first cause otherwise the effect would exist before the cause. For example, if I strike a match and put it down to the grass, then the grass would catch fire. The fire did not exist before I strike the match. God is the first cause. He has always been.Again the LDS view, similar as above, is contrary to this philosophy. The third way is what he refers to as the chain of causes. Basically all beings had to either be dependent or self existing. Not every being can be dependent so God is the self existing being.He has other philosophical proofs but since no one is arguing the existence of God, these are sufficient.
Calm Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 "Something has to be there that has been there and is unmoved to put everything else in to motion."How is this any less infinite than an infinite regress of causes? 1
StJude Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 "Something has to be there that has been there and is unmoved to put everything else in to motion."How is this any less infinite than an infinite regress of causes?Because of everything was dependent on something else, then nothing would exist. If there is an infinite regress of causes, there would be no first cause and we would not be here.
ERayR Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Because of everything was dependent on something else, then nothing would exist. If there is an infinite regress of causes, there would be no first cause and we would not be here. In an infinite universe what is before the unmoved mover? if you say there is one unique starting place it doesn't fit into an infinite universe.
StJude Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 In an infinite universe what is before the unmoved mover? if you say there is one unique starting place it doesn't fit into an infinite universe.Who has said the universe is infinite? Science even points to "the big bang" which is a unique starting place. God was before that, the unmoved mover who moved the universe into existance
StJude Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 There is nothing before the unmoved mover. yhus He is the unmoved mover. The self existing being.
Anakin7 Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Was/Is darkness co existant with God ?. In His Debt/Grace Anakin7 Edited January 18, 2015 by Anakin7
StJude Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Was/Is darkness co existant with God ?. In His Debt/Grace Anakin7There was no light so there could be no darkness. You can't have one without the other. It just was.
thesometimesaint Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Who has said the universe is infinite? Science even points to "the big bang" which is a unique starting place. God was before that, the unmoved mover who moved the universe into existance As far as we know this universe is about 13 billions of years old. At present we have no way of knowing what if anything happened before the BigBang but we are working on it. Looks like it might involve the String Theory and the Brane Theory. An "unmoved mover" is an oxymoronic statement.
Pahoran Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 I am sure you see the difference but I will point it so others may notice it as well. Joseph Smith said that God has not always been God. Christianity teaches that God has always been God. Actually, by your own admission, some Christians teach that God has not always been God. Regards, Pahoran 1
Pahoran Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Who has said the universe is infinite? Science even points to "the big bang" which is a unique starting place. God was before that, the unmoved mover who moved the universe into existance Need I point out that the "unmoved mover" is an Aristotelian idea that is utterly unscriptural? Regards, Pahoran 1
StJude Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Need I point out that the "unmoved mover" is an Aristotelian idea that is utterly unscriptural?Regards,PahoranHow is the idea that God is, was and always has been and created everything unscriptural? That seems to be a very specific point of the scriptures. The unmoved mover is just a philosophical way of reaching the conclusion that God must exist.
StJude Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 As far as we know this universe is about 13 billions of years old. At present we have no way of knowing what if anything happened before the BigBang but we are working on it. Looks like it might involve the String Theory and the Brane Theory. An "unmoved mover" is an oxymoronic statement.It is not an oxymoron. It's the simple way of saying that something had to exist independent of all other things of which all things are dependent. String Theory still requires the energy that creates the filaments and membranes. Something had to create that energy. This takes us back to my original statement.
Calm Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 The unmoved mover is just a philosophical way of reaching the conclusion that God must exist.Then why should we accept it as truth? I would assume you do not believe all philosophical conclusions as accurate. So why this one?
thesometimesaint Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) How is the idea that God is, was and always has been and created everything unscriptural? That seems to be a very specific point of the scriptures. The unmoved mover is just a philosophical way of reaching the conclusion that God must exist. The LDS believe that everyone has always existed. The LDS don't believe in Creation ex Nihilo. The LDS don't believe in that philosophical statement. "String Theory still requires the energy that creates the filaments and membranes. Something had to create that energy. This takes us back to my original statement" We don't know the absolute beginning of everything yet. Edited January 18, 2015 by thesometimesaint
StJude Posted January 18, 2015 Posted January 18, 2015 Then why should we accept it as truth?I would assume you do not believe all philosophical conclusions as accurate. So why this one?Because it's also a logical argument, only it's placed phisophically to explain it. It's simple:Either everything is dependent on something else, in which case we would not exist because there would neve have been a dependent cause, or there is an initital independent, unmoved, self existing being that caused the first cause, moved the first move and made the first dependent being.Without the existance of God, and without God always having been, then nothing would be here. There would have been no energy for what has been put forward in the String Theory to have existed prior to the Big Bang Theory, there would have been no spark for the Big Bang, etc etc. Nothing would be here because everything in existence is dependent upon something else.God couldn't have been man before because it would go on ad infinitum until again, either there is a non dependent being that created all the others, or all the others wouldn't exist. Mormoms believe that God was once a man like you and I and that one day they too can be gods of their own worlds. I know I'm repeating myself ad nauseam but it can't go on ad infinitum.God simply has to have been, or nothing would be. Whether you reach that conclusion logically, philosophically or theologically, it doesn't matter. If the conclusion is reached other than theologically, then once it is reached you approach it theologically for greater understanding.
Recommended Posts