God vs no God

[stemelbow]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Galileo was brilliant but realistically the Church were the more reasonable in the dispute. Galileo would be seen as a quack. Imagine a biologist trying to dethrone Darwin with his own pet theory without proof. Galileo had a theory and many of the tenets of that theory were shot down (planets orbiting in perfect circle for one).

Galileo then basically demanded the Church support him through some biblical exegesis. He was told no. A cardinal told him to put forward some proof or shut up. He then came up with the even then laughable idea that the tides were caused by the earth's rotation.

Galileo was not hauled into a church court by inquisitors seeking to stamp out heresy. He kept annoying popes and cardinals. One pope (a passing friend of Galileo) shot down his attempts for church approval with a weak argument. In a fit of pique Galileo wrote up a piece where the argument of the Pope was put into the mouth of an idiot, embarrassing the Pope.

Then he was hauled before a Church court and tried an insane and insulting legal defense that came close to the line of outright dishonesty (in my opinion was dishonest). 

He was an acerbic jerk with a gigantic ego. He was legitimately brilliant and was right on some things and outright wrong in others. The church in general liked him at first until he badgered them to accept his theories when they had no desire to and no proof he was right.

A modern analogy would be if Meldrum decided that not only was he right but the prophet had to endorse his theory on Book of Mormon geography and making a stink about it to every Church leader he could find and trying to force church hearings on the matter. Then, after meeting with apostles and the prophet and being turned down for lack of evidence he writes satire mocking the prophet as an idiot. Would he be a martyr if he were booted out of the church at that point. True, the Church did more to Galileo but they had secular authority and were treating him with a light touch considering the era.

I see you read Rico's piece, the Nehor.

Earlier in 1616 was Galileo not tried for teaching the Heliocentric model and told that he can't teach it?

Then in 1633:  "With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633, "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world", against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation [...] on 25 Feb 1616 that [...] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned"."

I'm not sure how you escape that in both cases he was condemned with two different popes at the helm for teaching the sun being the center. 

[Atheist Mormon]

Just now, Rico said:

Where is your proof he was wrongfully arrested and detained?

Who, Galileo? Are you insinuating he was rightfully arrested? 

 

[Ahab]

54 minutes ago, Rivers said:

The first step to believing is having a desire to believe in the first place.  The seed needs to be be planted in order for it to be  nurtured and grown.

He has a gigantic ego so I don't think he would have any trouble believing that he is the most supreme kind of being on this planet.

Now I just want to help him to understand that our species was established here by other people who were and still are the same species we are who came here "from outer space".

(thinking maybe the phrasr "from outer space" will make more sense to him than his idea of "heaven")

He was raised in Texas and now lives in New York City, so I'm now kinda leaning against the idea of referring to God, our Father, as an "alien" because his mind would almost immediately go to him being Hispanic. 

[Rivers]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

He has a gigantic ego so I don't think he would have any trouble believing that he is the most supreme kind of being on this planet.

Now I just want to help him to understand that our species was established here by other people who were and still are the same species we are who came here "from outer space".

(thinking maybe the phrasr "from outer space" will make more sense to him than his idea of "heaven")

He was raised in Texas and now lives in New York City, so I'm now kinda leaning against the idea of referring to God, our Father, as an "alien" because his mind would almost immediately go to him being Hispanic. 

And how would you explain the establishment of our species? Would it be as descendants of beings like us or some kind of bio-engineering?

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

He has a gigantic ego so I don't think he would have any trouble believing that he is the most supreme kind of being on this planet.

Now I just want to help him to understand that our species was established here by other people who were and still are the same species we are who came here "from outer space".

(thinking maybe the phrasr "from outer space" will make more sense to him than his idea of "heaven")

He was raised in Texas and now lives in New York City, so I'm now kinda leaning against the idea of referring to God, our Father, as an "alien" because his mind would almost immediately go to him being Hispanic. 

Well of course He is! Didn't you know that?

He called His Son "Jesus" after all...

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I see you read Rico's piece, the Nehor.

Earlier in 1616 was Galileo not tried for teaching the Heliocentric model and told that he can't teach it?

Then in 1633:  "With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633, "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world", against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation [...] on 25 Feb 1616 that [...] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned"."

I'm not sure how you escape that in both cases he was condemned with two different popes at the helm for teaching the sun being the center. 

Not really. I just went over it after you said that. I may have read it or something like it a while ago. A few years back I had a small obsession with Galileo and read several books, articles, and the like. I ended up admiring his smarts but knowing that he was probably insufferable in person and had no desire to meet him.

In 1616 Galileo got in trouble for his reading his theory into the Bible, not for the theory. The documents make it clear he was to leave the whole thing alone. He did for a while. The trial documents indicate that he was in trouble for believing it but the Church waited until he started bringing the Bible into it before he got put on trial. That is pretty telling as to the real motivation.

In 1633 Galileo was called in to defend "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" on the grounds that it was a violation of his previous sentence. He took the absurd position that the book advocated no such thing. I imagine that part of the nastiness of the court was due to this rather blatant attempt at misdirection.

 

 

[Ahab]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A modern analogy would be if Meldrum decided that not only was he right but the prophet had to endorse his theory on Book of Mormon geography and making a stink about it to every Church leader he could find and trying to force church hearings on the matter. Then, after meeting with apostles and the prophet and being turned down for lack of evidence he writes satire mocking the prophet as an idiot. Would he be a martyr if he were booted out of the church at that point. True, the Church did more to Galileo but they had secular authority and were treating him with a light touch considering the era.

No,  not really.  The Catholic church back then was not the equivalent of the true church of Christ today.

And Galileo was usually right while the Catholic church leaders were wrong. 

And an interesting tidbit about his idea of a perfect circle orbit is that an eliptic circle looks like a perfect circle from 2 perspectives.  Something I picked up on watching a movie called Angora that you might also like to see.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, theplains said:

Is there an LDS reference that depicts when a being (like you and Heavenly Father for example) 
became a god in an embryonic state?

Thanks,
Jim

This is LDS theology 101, and you could start with Hannah Rebekah's post 17 here on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58453-non-mormon-christian-doctrine-that-men-may-become-gods/page__pid__1209151269#entry1209151269 , just for a start (for apotheosis)..  Lorenzo Snow's dictum that "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become."   “In a letter to Samuel O. Bennion, February 26, 1912, Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund and Charles W. Penrose stated:But President Young went on to show that our Father Adam—that is our earthy father—the progenitor of the race of man, stands at the head being 'Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days,' and that he was not fashioned from earth life and adobe but begotten by his Father in Heaven."

 Brother Brigham likewise said

Quote

". . . . , yet man is the king of kings and lord of lords in embryo."  Journal of Discourses, 10:223

He also used to say:

Quote

“You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. . . . I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.”

The First Presidency, Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, said:

            

Quote

 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity.  "The Origin of Man," Improvement Era, 13 (Nov 1909):75-81. 

 

 Elder Marion G. Romney said more recently:   

Quote

 The truth I desire to emphasize today is that we mortals are in very deed the literal offspring of God.  Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, April 1973, pp. 133-136.

You will also want to consider 

Collins, John J., “A Throne in the Heavens: Apotheosis in Pre-Christian Judaism,” in J. J. Collins & M. Fishbane, eds., Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys (N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1995), 43-58.

“Becoming Like God,” an LDS.org Gospel Topic, 2014, online at https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng# .

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Rico said:

Gray,

Thou shall not bear false witness is a sin.  The Catholic Church did not do what you are trying to imply.  In the first place, the Catholic Church invented Science as we know it.  The Galileo Affair has been used by many to beat the Catholic Church.  But in so doing, they betray their gross ignorance.  It's all myth and propaganda spread since the so-called Age of Enlightenment.  The more informed atheists do not rehash this anymore.  Just fyi.

Sorry, Rico, but you have been somewhat misinformed:  While it is true that the Society of Jesus was the powerhouse of science in medieval times, its members were heir to the pagan science of the Greeks, such as Claudius Ptolemy.  It was the dogged and blind Jesuit adherence to Ptolemaic epicycles in the Renaissance which proved to be their undoing.  The Jesuits used the Church to intimidate Galileo into silence, only to find that fact-based research soon forced them to adopt the very heresy which they decried.  Renaissance magi had the last laugh, even as they were regularly burned at the stake by both Catholic and Protestant Luddites.

[Maedros]

8 hours ago, Ahab said:

He has a gigantic ego so I don't think he would have any trouble believing that he is the most supreme kind of being on this planet.

Now I just want to help him to understand that our species was established here by other people who were and still are the same species we are who came here "from outer space".

(thinking maybe the phrasr "from outer space" will make more sense to him than his idea of "heaven")

He was raised in Texas and now lives in New York City, so I'm now kinda leaning against the idea of referring to God, our Father, as an "alien" because his mind would almost immediately go to him being Hispanic. 

Perhaps, you should change your approach - instead of trying to pat and pie him toward believing in God; rather call him out on his false religion. He has fallen for one of Satan's greatest deceptions: to de-Christianize the world and to destroy the Bible without burning it - this started prior to the First Vision and the great architect of this Luciferian plot was Charles Darwin and his doctrine of Evolution. Your cousin (no doubt) is a follower of this religion and perhaps you should point that out to him - he seems to be all anti-religion yet he is a staunched follower of one.

[Rivers]

37 minutes ago, Maedros said:

Perhaps, you should change your approach - instead of trying to pat and pie him toward believing in God; rather call him out on his false religion. He has fallen for one of Satan's greatest deceptions: to de-Christianize the world and to destroy the Bible without burning it - this started prior to the First Vision and the great architect of this Luciferian plot was Charles Darwin and his doctrine of Evolution. Your cousin (no doubt) is a follower of this religion and perhaps you should point that out to him - he seems to be all anti-religion yet he is a staunched follower of one.

I  can't imagine that would go over very well either. 

I don't think there is a way to logically argue the existence of God.  There has to be a personal spiritual witness.  The biggest hurdle is being open to the possibility of God in the first place.

But if I was forced to try and prove the existence of God, I would probably start with the fine-tuning argument.

 

Edited April 28, 2016 by Rivers

[Maedros]

2 hours ago, Rivers said:

I don't think there is a way to logically argue the existence of God.  There has to be a personal spiritual witness.  The biggest hurdle is being open to the possibility of God in the first place.

But if I was forced to try and prove the existence of God, I would probably start with the fine-tuning argument.

 

The "personal witness" is definitely the best and only way to prove His existence and this is exactly my point. This cousin believes in a god - his god is mammon or the humanist ideologies of mankind; he definitely did not come to this belief all by himself; so he is a believer. So, instead of trying to prove the existence of our Judaeo/Christian God, rather get him to see/agree that he himself is a believer in a religion (humanism, atheism or Darwinism or any other ism) and then steer him toward the true God by argument and not pointless testifying or casting pearls.

I advise taking a lesson from Alma to Korihor who didn't shirk or soft-pedal for the sake of good grace but 'took the bull by the horns' and called a spade a spade:

42 Behold, I know that thou believest, but thou art possessed with a lying spirit, and ye have put off the Spirit of God that it may have no place in you; but the devil has power over you, and he doth carry you about, working devices that he may destroy the children of God.

43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, Gray said:

Great points. Putting it in those terms could just be the approach that opens up the conversation. 

Thanks, I think so as well, I need to develop that line of thinking

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Rivers said:

I  can't imagine that would go over very well either. 

I don't think there is a way to logically argue the existence of God.  There has to be a personal spiritual witness.  The biggest hurdle is being open to the possibility of God in the first place.

But if I was forced to try and prove the existence of God, I would probably start with the fine-tuning argument.

 

The only problem with that is that you are using science to prove an internal sense of what is in your heart.  What is in your heart was not put there by science,  or that theory, it comes from testimony 

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, Ahab said:

No,  not really.  The Catholic church back then was not the equivalent of the true church of Christ today.

And Galileo was usually right while the Catholic church leaders were wrong. 

And an interesting tidbit about his idea of a perfect circle orbit is that an eliptic circle looks like a perfect circle from 2 perspectives.  Something I picked up on watching a movie called Angora that you might also like to see.

You are straining the analogy.

Also, Galileo was at neither of those angles.

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are straining the analogy.

Also, Galileo was at neither of those angles.

I don't think so, for a modern equivalent. 

And the point is that it is a perfect circle when looking at it from not only 1 but 2 perspectives. 

[thesometimesaint]

Relative distance determined by parallax doesn't help that perspective.

[Ahab]

On 4/28/2016 at 0:31 AM, Maedros said:

Perhaps, you should change your approach - instead of trying to pat and pie him toward believing in God; rather call him out on his false religion. He has fallen for one of Satan's greatest deceptions: to de-Christianize the world and to destroy the Bible without burning it - this started prior to the First Vision and the great architect of this Luciferian plot was Charles Darwin and his doctrine of Evolution. Your cousin (no doubt) is a follower of this religion and perhaps you should point that out to him - he seems to be all anti-religion yet he is a staunched follower of one.

I think I said as much when I recommended that he make better choices regarding who to believe, but yes and thank you I am trying to cover that angle as well.  I still think it's best to point out WHAT we are talking about when we refer to God, though, rather than which of us (our kind of being) he chooses to follow.

We are all God and we should be following those of us who are as intelligent as we can be rather than someone with an obnoxious-and-rebellious-teenager-type mentality.

[theplains]

On 28/04/2016 at 1:33 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

This is LDS theology 101, and you could start with Hannah Rebekah's post 17 here on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58453-non-mormon-christian-doctrine-that-men-may-become-gods/page__pid__1209151269#entry1209151269 , just for a start (for apotheosis)..  Lorenzo Snow's dictum that "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become."   “In a letter to Samuel O. Bennion, February 26, 1912, Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund and Charles W. Penrose stated:But President Young went on to show that our Father Adam—that is our earthy father—the progenitor of the race of man, stands at the head being 'Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days,' and that he was not fashioned from earth life and adobe but begotten by his Father in Heaven."

<snip>

Thank you for the many references but they don't address the 'when' part of when you and 
Heavenly Father became gods in embryo.  Was it at the point of your individual spirit 
births to your respective heavenly parents?

Thanks,
Jim

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

Thank you for the many references but they don't address the 'when' part of when you and 
Heavenly Father became gods in embryo.  Was it at the point of your individual spirit 
births to your respective heavenly parents?

Thanks,
Jim

From before the foundations of this world were set. IOW We don't know exactly when.