Are Mormons' Christians?

[YH8]

Lets spread THAT around for a while, see if anyone pays attention.

Maybe if you cut stuff like your signature line out LDS will pay more attention to you?

[Golden Tapir]

someone being negative regarding my alleged negativity?

oh the humanity!

hey- at least I have the good taste to change it daily....

[PD1]

If you wish to, now, address the subject, please do.

I am all for it.

Okay, TS, if you're all for it, then why don't you do it? The questions for which you have never taken the time to address is: What does God need to exist as God? There seems to be quite a bit of contradictory "opinion" coming from the LDS. Yet, as was already pointed out earlier, all you have to do is mention one thing, and you have an imperfect God that you're worshiping. And is that the kind of God that any Christian ought to be revering?

[PD1]

2) You've translated the whole Bible?

[PD1]

O.K., I'm gonna say what I think/feel about this:

Right outta the blocks, the LDS start of by suggesting that other churches purpose is to get gain ($), and that they're inspired, more or less, by Satan, the Devil, Baalzebub, or maybe Ron Popiel. Whatever.

Then to make things WORSE (you didn't think it was possible, Right?) along comes BRM and says the Catholics are the G&A mentioned in the scriptures. OOPS! get the hook out for THAT guy!

We don't want the hook to get rusty, so we also use it on PHD.

Christians? Take a close look at how we treat Each Other, let alone others.

maybe Next Year.

(I know; I'm not perfect either)

Heavenly Father's grace extends to ALL.

Christ promised us that Love, Repentance, and Forgiveness will do the job.

Lets spread THAT around for a while, see if anyone pays attention.

What are you talking about?

[Paul Osborne]

How is this even a question? Has the definition of a christian been re-written?

Yep, it's been rewritten:

Naitsirhc.

Go figure.

Paul O

[jlp]

There are two reasons I don't like this question.

First, to answer it is to make a banket statement. This is the sort of question that is better asked about an individual person.

Second, I don't think it makes a hill of beans whether someone is Christian or not. Nothing makes me run faster than someone telling me they're Christian if the conversation isn't about religious/personal beliefs or telling me they're a good Christian in just about any context (Red flag! Red flag! Danger, Will Robinson, danger!). Ditto for asking me if I'm a Christian or a good Christian when it seems out of context. I'm more concerned with the big picture, whether someone is basically a good person or not. Christianity or any other religiosity is a poor basis for judging this.

Guess I'll go straight to heck for my lack of a missionary zeal.

[Teancum]

If you wish to, now, address the subject, please do.

I am all for it.

Okay, TS, if you're all for it, then why don't you do it? The questions for which you have never taken the time to address is: What does God need to exist as God? There seems to be quite a bit of contradictory "opinion" coming from the LDS. Yet, as was already pointed out earlier, all you have to do is mention one thing, and you have an imperfect God that you're worshiping. And is that the kind of God that any Christian ought to be revering?

What is it that says if God needs anything, etc. that He is imperfect?

Is this not a man made philosophical complaint?

How many reformed Christians understand the intracacies of the philosophy of classical theis.

Did the earlies Christians really wrangel with this other then the aoplogists?

What does the person anwering an alter call understand about this?

LDs believe all that God has revealed about himself. There is nothing that has been revealed that we do not believe.

I have tried to honestly answer your questions according to how I unerstand the Bible and LDS scripture. That is my measuring rod ovefr and beyond any non-canonical statement regardless of who makes it. LDS prophets have taught that if what they say disagrees with canon it can be set aside.

So, PD, where would you like to go with this.

No matter what anyone says you say no, LDS believe GOd needs thus and this an that and so is not a perfect God. As result you say we worship an idol. So be it.

I disagree as do the other posters here.

Where do you want to go with this now?

Teancum

[PD1]

What is it that says if God needs anything, etc. that He is imperfect?

Is this not a man made philosophical complaint?

How many reformed Christians understand the intracacies of the philosophy of classical theis.

Did the earlies Christians really wrangel with this other then the aoplogists?

What does the person anwering an alter call understand about this?

LDs believe all that God has revealed about himself. There is nothing that has been revealed that we do not believe.

I have tried to honestly answer your questions according to how I unerstand the Bible and LDS scripture. That is my measuring rod ovefr and beyond any non-canonical statement regardless of who makes it. LDS prophets have taught that if what they say disagrees with canon it can be set aside.

So, PD, where would you like to go with this.

No matter what anyone says you say no, LDS believe GOd needs thus and this an that and so is not a perfect God. As result you say we worship an idol. So be it.

I disagree as do the other posters here.

Where do you want to go with this now?

Teancum

Well, if God needs something, then's he's lacking in one particular area related to his person. And if he's lacking in one area, then one may rest assure that he's lacking elsewhere, given the perfect integration of God's being as a whole. In other words, imperfect in one aspect of God's being means that the whole of his being is equally affected, and imperfect, as well.

No, it's not a man made philosophical complaint. It is a theological observation derived from scripture in contrast to the man made religion of Mormonism, which desires to portray itself as sound theologically, when it is not.

It doesn't matter, since the questions are being asked of the LDS.

Who cares if the early Church or the apologists discussed this, when they are not the focus of the questions? Remember, it is the LDS who claim to have assisted in restoring true Christianity to what it supposedly was. Yet, if their theology is severely flawed on something as basic as the person of God, then did they really restore anything?

Probably nothing, at first. But, a solid course in biblical theology will build that person up in the faith to the point that when inconsistent theologies come along, they will be able to spot them.

I appreciate the effort, but do you really think it is good enough? Frankly, I don't, because I think you can think a bit deeper than you're letting on.

Again, I'm not asking for simplistic denials. So, I'm wanting to go a lot deeper with this. If God needs anything, then just how can that God be perfect? He's obviously lacking in some area of his being, or dependent upon someone or something for his existence, is he not? And if he's not God, due to his imperfection, then how is that thing not an idol?

Of course, I would not be asking such questions if a certain someone had not come along and started blurting out things about God, in the name of "true" Christianity, that when examined prove to be blatantly false. Yet since he did, then we need talk. And to avoid the questions is not only be intellectually dishonest, it is deceitful if whomever continues to propagate such ideas, and people are fooled into believing it. And I know the LDS desire to be honest. Does that somehow exclude Internet bulletin board discussions?

[1dc]

1dc, who says that translation involves translating "across multiple languages?" Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic to English. One to one. That is hardly "multiple languages."

True enough . . but your statement avoids the point of the comment. There would only be a single translation (and transcription) if what one translates was taken directly from the original writing by the original author in their native tongue (unless very proficient in another language). Otherwise we don't know how many translations and transcriptions may have been applied and what error may be interpreted.

Furthermore, once again, translation is not interpretation.  One interprets a passage after it has been translated and analyzed, which includes understanding the overall contextual and grammatical structure.

I disagree. There are different ways to translate. Even choosing the method for translation is an interpretation of which method conveys the best meaning. The words chosen for each particular translation assume interpretation of the original author's meaning . . and further . . may or may not include understanding the cultural reference and/or context of the author's intent.

And I don't know where I've dismissed credibility here. . . .  So, it's not that credibility was dismissed at all.  It was that there was no credibility to begin with, that was dismissed.

Without looking back I believe you said something to the effect that you don't care what others think about your credibility. If you're seeking truth rather than prideful defense of your work, then I assume you will be concerned with your credibility. I reacted only to your words, not the opinions of others about you. In that case a reader is prompted to consider whether your opinion has a reasonable degree of objectivity, or not.

Now, if you would like to take a shot at the real subject, which is God's aseity, then please do.

I believe the real subject is "Are Mormons Christinan?" Who besides Christ has the ultimately correct answer on this? That said, IMO a true Christian would give those who appear to honestly follow Him the benefit of their love and support. A so-called Christian would set up some test with which they would judge another.

As to aseity . . Is Christ self-sufficient? He loves His Father and follows His will. And yet we know Him both as fully God. I see Him as both dependent on His Father and self-sufficient in His exalted state.

Or, maybe you would like to give your translation of John 1:3, I'd like to see what you come up with.  But, please, don't do what some of the show offs have already done, otherwise, you'll simply sully your "credibility" as well.

I'd have to disagree with your seeming assertion that someone who uses and cites a reference isn't credible. Their souce may be superior or inferior, but they're credible. Their conclusion may be right or wrong, but they're credible. If they cited it as their own translation and interpretation then they wouldn't be credible.

A "perfect" translation would need to clarify whether the context was for the Earth or our Universe or all Universes (all dimensions). I think credibility suffers if one suggests John 1--let alone one verse--tells us what the author meant beyond what the text implies.

[PD1]

1dc, who says that translation involves translating "across multiple languages?"

[Zeitgeist]

Absolutely. They claim to be.

Zeitgeist

[PD1]

Absolutely. They claim to be.

Zeitgeist

And just because anyone makes a claim, that necessarily makes the claim true?

[1dc]

As for your assertion, it completely ignores what was asked of you. Are you going to give your translation of the verse, or not? If not, then don't do as your cohorts have done, and wreck your credibility. Just admit your deficiency and leave it at that.

LOL, the assertion didn't ignore your request, it renders the meaning moot.

I was hoping for it, but if you insist you can claim title as Expert On What Constitutes Complete Ignorance And Deficiency (EOWCCIAD). Please add this accronym to your sig so we will all be duely informed.

PS - since some of us block all avatars and sigs, perhaps you should change your user ID so everyone can see it?

[PD1]

As for your assertion, it completely ignores what was asked of you.

[Tanyan]

And LDS have not been discussing it for the last 175 years ?.

[PD1]

And LDS have not been discussing it for the last 175 years ?.

Indeed, they have. Ironically, though, the LDS on this board, and elsewhere, when they're being questioned as to its validity, seem only too willing to ignore what has been said. Now, just why do you think that is, Tanyan? It surely cannot be attributed to openness and honesty. Could it be due to fear and deception that the LDS don't want to talk about God? And the LDS want to be recognized as Christians?

[Teancum]

Well, if God needs something, then's he's lacking in one particular area related to his person.

Why? Who decided if God needs something He is imperfect? if he needed nothing then why did he create beings to worship him? Us, Angels. Why?

And if he's lacking in one area, then one may rest assure that he's lacking elsewhere, given the perfect integration of God's being as a whole.

If God works with organized materials that exist co-eternally with Him that in nowise implies that he needs anything else. And it does not even imply he needed the materials. They just were there, as He was.

In other words, imperfect in one aspect of God's being means that the whole of his being is equally affected, and imperfect, as well.

This is simply a man made parameter. If God needs nothing then he certainly became imperfect by creating flawed and evil beings.

No, it's not a man made philosophical complaint.

Yes it is. Nobody really knows what God is and needs until they see him.

It is a theological observation derived from scripture in contrast to the man made religion of Mormonism, which desires to portray itself as sound theologically, when it is not.

It is simply a theological observation made from scripture written by men according to their understanding. It takes these verses and imposes certain philosophical conclusions and constraints that are postulated by fallible humans. It is man made. As man made as you think LDS Theology is.

It doesn't matter, since the questions are being asked of the LDS.

Whoopie poopie.

Who cares if the early Church or the apologists discussed this, when they are not the focus of the questions?

The point is that your all consuming desire regarding aseity is man made. The earliest Christians did not give one hoot about it and they were as Christian as anyone. Were you asking them these questions they would think you rather odd.

Remember, it is the LDS who claim to have assisted in restoring true Christianity to what it supposedly was

Yes. So?

Yet, if their theology is severely flawed on something as basic as the person of God, then did they really restore anything?

What you think we are severely flawed on is your own non biblical conceit and construct. Your theology was certainly not theirs. That is why this matters.

Probably nothing, at first.  But, a solid course in biblical theology will build that person up in the faith to the point that when inconsistent theologies come along, they will be able to spot them.

And clearly the majority if reformed Christians still don't ha a clue about what you are talking about. Thus it does not seem to necessary. Ask most reformed Christian to explain the trinity and you get modalisim. So, are they not Christian?

Teancum

[T-Shirt]

If you wish to, now, address the subject, please do.

I am all for it.

Okay, TS, if you're all for it, then why don't you do it?

After my post, this is all you've got? Who is the one who doesn't want to engage in the discussion? You were very critical of my use of the word "ginomai" but did nothing but accuse me of not knowing what I was talking about. Can you support your use of the word in comparison to the other 6 or 700 times it is used in the New Testament. Or, are you unwillng to engage in this discussion?

The questions for which you have never taken the time to address is: What does God need to exist as God?

I frankly don't understand the importance of the question. You are trying to force a conclusion, based on your own predetermined theology, that no LDS is going to agree with.

There seems to be quite a bit of contradictory "opinion" coming from the LDS.

[PD1]

Why?  Who decided if God needs something He is imperfect?  if he needed nothing then why did he create beings to worship him?  Us, Angels.  Why?

Well, if he needed something or something to assist him in his existence, then how can he be perfect, particularly as it relates to his aseity? He's obviously not independent, yet he has revealed that he is.

As for the creation, that has already been answered, and has absolutely nothing to do with aiding in his existence.

If God works with organized materials that exist co-eternally with Him that in nowise implies that he needs anything else.  And it does not even imply he needed the materials.  They just were there, as He was.

Sorry, but that does not jive with what the Bible says about creation. Besides, if something is co-eternal with God, then he's no different, essentially, that whatever is being compared to him. And once again, that is inconsistent with scripture, starting with the most basic of the Ten Commandments, and that was to refrain from making, or assuming, that there is anything in creation comparable to God.

This is simply a man made parameter.  If God needs nothing then he certainly became imperfect by creating flawed and evil beings.

No, it's not a manmade parameter. Assuming that God needs something to exist as God is manmade, as well as idolatrous. And God does not become anything because of what he creates, because God does not change. Yet, as soon as one says that he changes, or has the potential to change, then they're once again admitting to his imperfection, because the implication is that God could also not exist. And that is not possible either.

Nobody really knows what God is and needs until they see him.

Incorrect. Created beings can only know God when he reveals himself to them. God has revealed who he is as the self-sufficient Creator of all things, and if one believes that it is proper to be agnostic about such things as God's aseity, and that one can only know by seeing him, let me assure you that by that time rolls around, it will be too late, and won't matter anyway.

It is simply a theological observation made from scripture written by men according to their understanding.  It takes these verses and imposes certain philosophical conclusions and constraints that are postulated by fallible humans.  It is man made.  As man made as you  think LDS Theology is.

The attribute of God's aseity is not manmade speculation. It comes directly from God. Acts 17:24-25 is a classic statement in that regard. It says, "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things." Now, you're either going to believe the statement, or you're going to concoct your own imperfect image of just who you think God is, and worship it, as the LDS have.

The point is that your all consuming desire regarding aseity is man made.  The earliest Christians did not give one hoot about it and they were as Christian as anyone.  Were you asking them these questions they would think you rather odd.

Are you sure that the ECF didn't "give one hoot about" God's aseity? If so, then why did the following state what they did about it?

For while the Gentiles, by offering such things to those that are destitute of sense and hearing, furnish an example of madness; they, on the other hand by thinking to offer these things to God as if He needed them, might justly reckon it rather an act of folly than of divine worship. For He that made heaven and earth, and all that is therein, and gives to us all the things of which we stand in need, certainly requires none of those things which He Himself bestows on such as think of furnishing them to Him. But those who imagine that, by means of blood, and the smoke of sacrifices and burnt-offerings, they offer sacrifices [acceptable] to Him, and that by such honors they show Him respect,

[PD1]

The questions for which you have never taken the time to address is: What does God need to exist as God?

I frankly don't understand the importance of the question.  You are trying to force a conclusion, based on your own predetermined theology, that no LDS is going to agree with.

Interesting, given what was just posted in rebuttal of the claim that even the ECF didn't "give a hoot" about God's aseity. The fact of the matter is, God's aseity has nothing to do with "predetermined theology," and everything to do with what God has revealed about himself. The ECF's knew that, and anyone who enjoys thinking about God knows it as well. Are you saying that you don't enjoy thinking theologically, TS? If not, then what is it that you don't understand, or don't want to understand, because it is you who is the one who's been fed a shovel full of "predetermined theology," and haven't taken one second to consider what you were eating. Well, TS, it's time to start thinking about it, because if you persist in believing that God needs something or someone to exist as God, then one day the God who needs nothing to exist as he is, is going to judge your idolatrous theology, and it isn't going to pretty.

If I am a husband, I need my wife in order to be considered a husband.  Does that automatically classify me as an imperfect husband?

Are you saying that God's needs a wife?

If I am a father, I must therefore have children to be considered a father.  Am I therfore an imperfect father?

Are you saying that God needs children?

Your logic is flawed.

Not as badly as LDS theology is. Because based on what you've just rhetorically asked, you worship a God in need. In other words, he lacks something which prevents him from being perfect as God. In and of himself he cannot exist, which is totally foreign to what scripture has to say about him.

"Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen."

[T-Shirt]

The questions for which you have never taken the time to address is: What does God need to exist as God?

I am not surprised that your reply was just what I expected. You simply don't answer questions. You brush everything asside and make no attempt to address the points being made.

I frankly don't understand the importance of the question.

[PD1]

I don't recall ever saying that God needed anything.

T-Shirt

Have you ever thought that if you would have simply answered the question to begin with, that perhaps you wouldn't spend most of your time in denial?

TS, what does God need to exist as God?

[1dc]

And LDS have not been discussing it for the last 175 years ?.

Indeed, they have. Ironically, though, the LDS on this board, and elsewhere, when they're being questioned as to its validity, seem only too willing to ignore what has been said. Now, just why do you think that is, Tanyan? It surely cannot be attributed to openness and honesty. Could it be due to fear and deception that the LDS don't want to talk about God? And the LDS want to be recognized as Christians?

Or it could be posts like the one above.

Or it could be your failure to address the assertion which frames whether any conversation with you on you translation is meaningful before spending time on it. You want to discuss God, then at least discuss the responses to the questions you throw out instead of ignoring them and dismissing them because they aren't easy or what you had hoped.

Or take your own comments and question your own sincerity as a Christian.

[PD1]

You want to discuss God, then at least discuss the responses to the questions you throw out instead of ignoring them and dismissing them because they aren't easy or what you had hoped.

The problem is, there haven't been responses worth noting. Instead, what has been offered, thus far, have been like the one you just wrote, or one like TS' above. Lots of diversionary tactics that never answer the questions. Lots of extraneous accusations intended to vilify the questioner. But, no responses. Now, if you would care to change all of that, then please answer the initial question, and we'll go from there.

What does God need to exist as God? Got it?