Jump to content

Is god a mormon?


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Jamie said:

The classification of something as a sin simply means it is classified as something that is bad and should not be done, according to what God has told us.  And as is really the case, it is really bad for us and therefore something we should not do.

God is right, and always is right, after all.

Are there things that are bad but not sins? To continue with the word of wisdom and health examples, is it a sin to be overweight? To not exercise enough? Does one need to repent of this?

Boy, if all "bad" things are sin then we humans are royally screwed. We'd spend all day repenting, and then have to repent for spending too much time repenting and neglecting other things.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It specifically refers to the authority to bind/loose sins. It also includes the authority to declare dogma and binding scriptural interpretations, to set Church policy, and to set sacramental rites.

I was taught that all the sacraments leave an "indelable mark" on the spirit, and so certainly all sacraments then must in some way be recorded in heaven

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

My idea is that He has taken upon himself immanence- voluntarily- and THAT is part of the story of the Fall.   That was the sacrifice God endured- becoming man and then voluntarily taking upon himself, due to that voluntary immanence, EVERY experience both good and bad- which humans are capable of having.

This fits Catholic theology well enough. The Incarnation was voluntary immanence, making God both transcendent and immanent.

We have no problems talking about God through paradox. In fact, it seems to me the best way to go about it. Mysticism certainly seems to agree.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I was taught that all the sacraments leave an "indelable mark" on the spirit, and so certainly all sacraments then must in some way be recorded in heaven

Yes, you have been forever bound to the Catholic Church. You can't talk your way out of it with your post-modern Mormon babble. You are forever ours, muahahaha!

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

HUH??

That's what you were looking for- an example of "natural" - (ie: irrelevant to the idea of "sin"- ) consequences of breaking the word of wisdom.

Every single consequence of disease or accidents are natural consequences of breaking those dietary restrictions- regardless of whether or not they are defined as "sins"

I will clarify my point - the 'consequence' in that scenario exists regardless of whether the act is defined as a sin.  It exists apart from a decree of either man or god.  It simply is.  In other words, the consequences are unchanged whether the act is classified as a sin, or not.

The original argument began because a self-appointed defender asserted that God's laws are inseparable from natural laws and that God's obedience to eternal law is part of what makes Him God; all in response to a question as to why does God demand a blood sacrifice to allow repentance to be effective.  The defender then invoked the subject of justice and that the law must be fulfilled or God ceases to be God.  The defender went on to assert that the 'wages of sin is death" (quoting the New Testament).  I pointed out that the real 'cause' of death is life.  It exists regardless of whether we sin.  Thus began a discussion on whether there exists an example of sin with natural consequences WHICH WOULD OCCUR ONLY BECAUSE IT IS A SIN.  In other words, is there such a thing as an act with natural consequences BECAUSE the act is a sin?

Over, and over, and over again I have shown that consequences referred to by defenders would exist whether or not the precedent act was labeled by god or man as a sin.  There is no need, even, for the existence of a god for those natural consequences to occur.  Just like I will fall to my death if I slip off the edge of the Grand Canyon because gravity exists, not because my disobedience to park rules was a sin.  Labeling something as a sin that you already know has bad consequences does not prove that something is a sin; that's circular reasoning.

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

This fits Catholic theology well enough. The Incarnation was voluntary immanence, making God both transcendent and immanent.

We have no problems talking about God through paradox. In fact, it seems to me the best way to go about it. Mysticism certainly seems to agree.

Yep, that also works as long as it does not get too far out. ("God is a brick")

But man trying to define God into our prideful definitions? Fergitaboutit.!

For me that is the parable of Babel.

Using "towering" language (high falutin) ;) words supposed to correspond to our Creator? Put God into a few scribbles on paper?

Can't happen!  Language is too "confounded" to allow that!

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, you have been forever bound to the Catholic Church. You can't talk your way out of it with your post-modern Mormon babble. You are forever ours, muahahaha!

LOL!  I can think of worse fates! ;)

It's all just ambiguous Babel anyway. Words separate, AND unify. We gotta make up boundaries that prove that you are wrong and I am right.

Go Dodgers!!

Tribalism in action!

Pride is the basis of all motivations toward sin!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I will clarify my point - the 'consequence' in that scenario exists regardless of whether the act is defined as a sin.  It exists apart from a decree of either man or god.  It simply is.  In other words, the consequences are unchanged whether the act is classified as a sin, or not.

The original argument began because a self-appointed defender asserted that God's laws are inseparable from natural laws and that God's obedience to eternal law is part of what makes Him God; all in response to a question as to why does God demand a blood sacrifice to allow repentance to be effective.  The defender then invoked the subject of justice and that the law must be fulfilled or God ceases to be God.  The defender went on to assert that the 'wages of sin is death" (quoting the New Testament).  I pointed out that the real 'cause' of death is life.  It exists regardless of whether we sin.  Thus began a discussion on whether there exists an example of sin with natural consequences WHICH WOULD OCCUR ONLY BECAUSE IT IS A SIN.  In other words, is there such a thing as an act with natural consequences BECAUSE the act is a sin?

Over, and over, and over again I have shown that consequences referred to by defenders would exist whether or not the precedent act was labeled by god or man as a sin.  There is no need, even, for the existence of a god for those natural consequences to occur.  Just like I will fall to my death if I slip off the edge of the Grand Canyon because gravity exists, not because my disobedience to park rules was a sin.  Labeling something as a sin that you already know has bad consequences does not prove that something is a sin; that's circular reasoning.

Now if your question is, “Is there such a thing as an act with natural consequences BECAUSE the act is a sin?” the answer is “Yes, in that God’s laws are inseparable from natural laws.” The prevention from entering a higher kingdom is a natural consequence of unrepented sin. Because there are many ways to sin, things such as the light of Christ, constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, grace, etc. are essential. These, among many other resources, help us identify and “label” sins so that we do not have to reinvent the wheel every time we are tempted.

God’s (aka spiritual, eternal) laws are inseparable from natural (aka temporal) laws when one accepts that “All things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal, (D&C 29:3). So, the defender has reason there.

I think that God’s obedience to eternal law means, as Jesus explained, that “as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself… I can of mine own self do nothing… because I seek …the will of the Father which hath sent me …for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do…” Eternal law is not a set of ethereal principles, but the eternal body that is given from father to son from eternity to eternity (the eternal round); God would otherwise cease to be God. So, I’m not sure what the defender means, but this is how I see it.

You point out that the real cause of death is life. This seems inconsistent with the idea above, that life begets life, and deviation from the eternal round (aka sin) begets death. How exactly does life cause death? I know it precedes death, and is a necessary state to have before death, but I don’t see how it causes death. Disobeying the park rules that protect life, for example, can end life because it subjects the disobedient to the more extreme gravitational phenomena than does staying on the path.

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I will clarify my point - the 'consequence' in that scenario exists regardless of whether the act is defined as a sin.  It exists apart from a decree of either man or god.  It simply is.  In other words, the consequences are unchanged whether the act is classified as a sin, or not.

The original argument began because a self-appointed defender asserted that God's laws are inseparable from natural laws and that God's obedience to eternal law is part of what makes Him God; all in response to a question as to why does God demand a blood sacrifice to allow repentance to be effective.  The defender then invoked the subject of justice and that the law must be fulfilled or God ceases to be God.  The defender went on to assert that the 'wages of sin is death" (quoting the New Testament).  I pointed out that the real 'cause' of death is life.  It exists regardless of whether we sin.  Thus began a discussion on whether there exists an example of sin with natural consequences WHICH WOULD OCCUR ONLY BECAUSE IT IS A SIN.  In other words, is there such a thing as an act with natural consequences BECAUSE the act is a sin?

Over, and over, and over again I have shown that consequences referred to by defenders would exist whether or not the precedent act was labeled by god or man as a sin.  There is no need, even, for the existence of a god for those natural consequences to occur.  Just like I will fall to my death if I slip off the edge of the Grand Canyon because gravity exists, not because my disobedience to park rules was a sin.  Labeling something as a sin that you already know has bad consequences does not prove that something is a sin; that's circular reasoning.

I still can't see the difference between what you said and what I said.

Natural consequences have nothing to do with what is or is not a sin

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Now if your question is, “Is there such a thing as an act with natural consequences BECAUSE the act is a sin?” the answer is “Yes, in that God’s laws are inseparable from natural laws.” The prevention from entering a higher kingdom is a natural consequence of unrepented sin. Because there are many ways to sin, things such as the light of Christ, constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, grace, etc. are essential. These, among many other resources, help us identify and “label” sins so that we do not have to reinvent the wheel every time we are tempted.

God’s (aka spiritual, eternal) laws are inseparable from natural (aka temporal) laws when one accepts that “All things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal, (D&C 29:3). So, the defender has reason there.

I think that God’s obedience to eternal law means, as Jesus explained, that “as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself… I can of mine own self do nothing… because I seek …the will of the Father which hath sent me …for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do…” Eternal law is not a set of ethereal principles, but the eternal body that is given from father to son from eternity to eternity (the eternal round); God would otherwise cease to be God. So, I’m not sure what the defender means, but this is how I see it.

You point out that the real cause of death is life. This seems inconsistent with the idea above, that life begets life, and deviation from the eternal round (aka sin) begets death. How exactly does life cause death? I know it precedes death, and is a necessary state to have before death, but I don’t see how it causes death. Disobeying the park rules that protect life, for example, can end life because it subjects the disobedient to the more extreme gravitational phenomena than does staying on the path.

First, let's define "cause" as a "necessary precedent condition."

Second, I am defining "natural consequences" as meaning something observable in the natural world.  I'm excluding after-life consequences; those are spiritual or super-natural in their nature.

Third, quoting scripture as evidence of your point is a non-starter for proving that sin begets natural consequences when I am able to repeatedly show that the thing you are calling a sin does not have to be called a sin in order to realize the consequence.

Fourth, your alteration of my Grand Canyon example proves my point.  Park rules may be a wise warning, but me falling to my death is not because I disobeyed the sign; it's because gravity exists.

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I still can't see the difference between what you said and what I said.

Natural consequences have nothing to do with what is or is not a sin

I agree with the bolded statement.  Therefore, your argument is not with me, it's with your fellow defenders.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, ttribe said:

First, let's define "cause" as a "necessary precedent condition."

Second, I am defining "natural consequences" as meaning something observable in the natural world.  I'm excluding after-life consequences; those are spiritual or super-natural in their nature.

Third, quoting scripture as evidence of your point is a non-starter for proving that sin begets natural consequences when I am able to repeatedly show that the thing you are calling a sin does not have to be called a sin in order to realize the consequence.

Fourth, your alteration of my Grand Canyon example proves my point.  Park rules may be a wise warning, but me falling to my death is not because I disobeyed the sign; it's because gravity exists.

Thank you for providing the definitions I was looking for. Without them, as you can see, I naturally gravitate towards using my own.

First: So, life is a necessary precedent condition, among innumerable others (including physiology, accident, sin, weather, illness, etc.), for death.

Fourth: You are questioning the role of sin (e.g., disobeying the meaning and intent of, and the justification and authority behind, the park sign) as another necessary precedent condition. You did not disobey the sign because gravity exists; why did you do it? Disobedience and these innumerable other factors, along with your being alive, contributed to your deadly experience with gravity.

Second: If you wish to exclude after-life consequences, we can look at this-life parallels that show that “wickedness never was happiness”; that is, those who live with what they accept as the light of Christ, the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, grace, etc. (and add whatever you call your sense of goodness, morality, luck, etc.), experience misery when they lose these. Granted, innumerable other things can cause many kinds of misery, but that does not negate this kind of psychogenic impact, the losses contributing to it, and their causes.

Third: Have you ever experienced the misery of deviating from the dictates of your conscience, or even just getting caught? If so, my scriptures provide valid evidence, as a confirming reference, of your own experience.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

think Calm may remember.

Remember no...more often these days it is a vague sense of familiarity that I then research.  Memory is too screwed up these days. 

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Calm said:

Remember no...more often these days it is a vague sense of familiarity that I then research.  Memory is too screwed up these days. 

Yes I get it totally!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ttribe said:

First, let's define "cause" as a "necessary precedent condition."

And how far will that get you?

And ALL this is barely scratching the surface...

 
Quote

 

About 427,000 results (0.70 seconds) 
 
 
 
 
 

Search Results

Web results

by J Schaffer · 2003 · Cited by 321 — The first of these, inspired by Anscombe's (1975) claim that causation is an intensional relation, takes causation to be relative to descriptions of ...
Immanent: Davidson
Transcendent: unoccupied
 
 
by C Hitchcock · 1997 · Cited by 344 — “Probabilistic Causation” designates a group of theories that aim to characterize the relationship between cause and effect using the tools of ...
by P Menzies · 2001 · Cited by 358 — In terms of counterfactuals, Lewis defines a notion of causal dependence between events, which plays a central role in his theory of causation ( ...
 
by M Frisch · 2020 · Cited by 1 — What role, if any, do causal notions play in physics? On the one hand, it might appear intuitively obvious that physics aims to provide us with ...
 
by J Woodward · 2001 · Cited by 251 — Manipulability theories of causation, according to which causes are to be regarded as handles or devices for manipulating effects, have ...
 
by M Moore · 2019 · Cited by 20 — The conventional wisdom about the causation requirement in both criminal law and torts is that it in reality consists of two very different ...
 
by D Robb · 2003 · Cited by 195 — Mental causation—the mind's causal interaction with the world, and in particular, its influence on behavior—is central to our conception of ...
 
by A Falcon · 2006 · Cited by 350 — The emphasis on the concept of cause explains why Aristotle developed a theory of causality which is commonly known as the doctrine of the ...
 
by J Faye · 2001 · Cited by 95 — The notion of backward causation, however, stands for the idea that the temporal order of cause and effect is a mere contingent feature and that ...
 
by M Bobro · 2005 · Cited by 20 — Just thirty years after Leibniz's death, David Hume stated that his own definition of cause entails that “all causes are of the same kind,” namely, ...

 

 
 
 
 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ttribe said:

I agree with the bolded statement.  Therefore, your argument is not with me, it's with your fellow defenders.

That is an oversimplification.  There are two different paradigms, on based on the premise- a PREMISE from the beginning- an assumption or a definition- of one paradigm is that "All things are spiritual"

In that all things are mental phenomena, I agree with that paradigm.  I see them as spiritual mental phenomena.

The second paradigm - mostly taken by positivists and scientists- ASSUMES by definition that "spirit"does not exist, and therefore there is no logical connection between sin and scientifically observable phenomena.

That makes your statements circular, or "question begging" from the start.   

OF course sin has no natural consequences if you assume from the start that that is impossible

So in one paradigm the answer is yes, and in the other, the answer is no.

In other words the answer depends on your primary assumption and which language-game you are playing- secular philosophy or scriptural theology.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That is an oversimplification.  There are two different paradigms, on based on the premise- a PREMISE from the beginning- an assumption or a definition- of one paradigm is that "All things are spiritual"

In that all things are mental phenomena, I agree with that paradigm.  I see them as spiritual mental phenomena.

The second paradigm - mostly taken by positivists and scientists- ASSUMES by definition that "spirit"does not exist, and therefore there is no logical connection between sin and scientifically observable phenomena.

That makes your statements circular, or "question begging" from the start.   

OF course sin has no natural consequences if you assume from the start that that is impossible

So in one paradigm the answer is yes, and in the other, the answer is no.

In other words the answer depends on your primary assumption and which language-game you are playing- secular philosophy or scriptural theology.

I described the initial source of the discussion.  The initiating assumptions were made by the defender, not by me.  I simply showed that the quoted scriptures and the conclusions he was reaching made no sense.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, ttribe said:

I described the initial source of the discussion.  The initiating assumptions were made by the defender, not by me.  I simply showed that the quoted scriptures and the conclusions he was reaching made no sense.

In your paradigm

Link to comment
On 6/1/2021 at 1:51 PM, rodheadlee said:

You have to exercise the keys to the ministering of angels. As an Aaronic priesthood holder it's one of the few tools I am allowed to use. 

I was in that position when my father passed away, and I had just been baptized, and the funeral site was about 200 miles from where I lived.   I wanted the grave to be dedicated even though he was not a member.

I knew no one in that area who was LDS much less a Melchizedek priesthood holder

I prayed that the Lord would send an angel to dedicate the grave, and soon thereafter I had a strong spiritual experience confirming that it had been done.

Very few appreciate the power available to Aaronic priesthood holders through those keys.

Link to comment
On 6/1/2021 at 6:42 AM, teddyaware said:

Am I correct in presuming you believe that after we die we forever cease to exist as conscious intelligent beings? If this is the case, what’s the harm if prior to the endless oblivion that follows death if some choose to believe life as a conscious being continues after death, that this life is part of a glorious divine plan with a wonderful destiny, and that a just being of perfect intelligence, wisdom and love presides over this creation? Is there some greater appreciation for life and greater potential for peace and happiness if one believes life is ultimately futile, meaningless and of no lasting consequence? What’s the advantage is there in living life with the belief that faith, hope and charity don’t endure forever and that existence is nothing more than a bizarre cosmic accident?

Precisely!   Pascal's Wager.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager#:~:text=Pascal's wager is an argument,either exists or does not.

But I have made that point with him more than once, with no effect

Quote

 

Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, theologian, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that human beings bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though (the Christian) God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).[2]

The original wager was set out in Pascal's posthumously published Pensées ("Thoughts"), an assembly of previously unpublished notes.[3] Pascal's wager charted new territory in probability theory,[4] marked the first formal use of decision theory, existentialism, pragmatism, and voluntarism.[5]

 

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, as I’m sure you know, the problem with Pascal’s wager is which God/religion are we talking about?

Not a problem for us.

We get converts on the other side.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Not a problem for us.

We get converts on the other side.

Only two Churches there...

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...