Are Mormons' Christians?

[Tanyan]

I see that Athens has risen again and resorted to name calling again, when will it ever end ?. Yes your world of neo-platoism is not one I wish to enter.

You're already in that which you say you're not. After all, you're the one with the needy God who started out as an aeon ("intelligence"), who through enough self-effort, traversed his way back to where he began, not me.

Can you say the words "Ad hominem ?", liberal eh ?, they have no truth ?.

Hey, if the shoe fits

[Tanyan]

Whoops !, sorry the link should be, http://www.anglefire.com/az3/LDC/Topics.htm

[Tanyan]

Having a frustrating day, lets try this, http://www.angelfire.com/az3/LDC/Topics.htm

[PD1]

And it wasn't the Baptists and "the Mob" that killed the false prophet. God took his life for being the perverse person that he was.

So it was God who fired the buletts that rendered him lifeless?

God didn't shoot the gun, but he did take his life.

[Teancum]

And it wasn't the Baptists and "the Mob" that killed the false prophet. God took his life for being the perverse person that he was.

So it was God who fired the buletts that rendered him lifeless?

God didn't shoot the gun, but he did take his life.

God controls all life. When you die he will take your life as well.

If you are saying God had some special purpose in destroying JS then you have yet to demonstrate andy evidnence of it other then your rant.

Teancum

[Tanyan]

I guess its a good thing the leader of the mob was a Baptist minister to help out .

[Tanyan]

Why would a Baptist minister have murder in his heart to take a life ?. I thought THE LORD OF LIFE said "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, BLESS THEM THAT CURSE YOU". Remember, murders do not inherit Eternal Life [Christian or not].

[Zakuska]

Yep...  there you go putting limits on God again.

Didn't you do that on another thread, where you implied God couldn't change bread and wine into flesh and blood?

Did I not say... "With God anything is possible".

But does God really want us to be cannibals?

[Zakuska]

Tanyan,

Thanks for continuing to fullfill prophecy.

Don't call him a prophet.

[Zakuska]

PD1,

God didn't shoot the gun, but he did take his life.

[Tanyan]

Zakuska, Thanks but I believe you know what I mean. PD1 is fulfilling prophecy "from" a "True" Prophet". Better ?.

[Zakuska]

Yes... I was trying to make a joke.

wolf among the flock.

[Tanyan]

Zakuska, PD1 is another in a long line of those who remind me of "BIFF TANNON" from the "Back To The Future" movie series.

[PD1]

PD1,

I purely literal read of the Bible passages you use confirm God's aseity.  One wonders now if we should be as literal with other passages as well.

The only thing you really need to wonder about is whether or not you're going to ascribe to the idea of a perfect God that is in need of something to maintain his perfection. If you say "yes," then just what kind of God are you following?

For if God needs absolutely nothing then we must accept that he is impassable.  He needs nothing and he does not need us.  Yet the Bible refers to a myriad of emotions the God seems to have.  And if God needs nothing why did he create us?  To glorify Him?  It cannot be if he needs nothing and if he is impassable.  And if he is impassable and needs nothing he is an actuality and not a potentiality.  Thus once again our worship, obedience, etc. impact God in not on whit of a way at all.

First of all, God's aseity is only related to his impassibility in the sense that they are two of his attributes that constitute his being. Second, impassibility has to do with being regardless of what happens externally. Therefore, no one, nor anything can make God anything other than he is, or do what he does, regardless of the passion involved; good, bad, or otherwise. So, to answer your question about creation, he created us for his own glory (Rev. 4:11), not because he needed us. In fact, I've already discussed this earlier. And you're right, our worship and obedience is for our benefit, and make us what we are, and have absolutely zero impact on the being of God. For God would remain exactly who he is whether we worshiped him, or even existed at all. Alternatively, the LDS God would cease to exist, because he needs those things that are external to himself to define who he is.

And if one really needs to accept Thomas Aquinas's systematic theology to be saved then there are a lot of Christians going to Hell.

This has nothing to do with Aquinas. Just pick up your Bible, read what it says, and think about it for a change.

BTW, you mentioned when I stand before God?  You and I cannot stand before a God that needs nothing, is an actuality, is simplicity, is impassable and is an omnipresent non corporeal being.  So no worries there. 

I've got news for you...yes you will. I'll be standing here (2 Cor 5:10), while you'll be standing at the Great White (Rev 20:11-15), if you keep on following the LDS idol. And let me further inform you, they're not the same judgment seats.

Yes Jesus Christ, the express image of God is not impassable, immutable, an actuality nor lacking needs.  So if we are to understand God the Father by the incarnation of His Son, God in the flesh, then is God really possessing  a pure and simple aseity?

Sorry, but "express image" has nothing to do with physicality. And the incarnation of the Son was for the redemption of humanity, and not to express the physical constitution of God the Father.

And if so then Christ, His son has experienced not only change, but has become a thing the Father is not.

Incorrect. For Jesus Christ did not "change" by taking on human flesh. He was still the same person he has always been.

Christ is the omni man, the theophurus, the forever God Man.  His Father, according to your literal systematic theological constraints is simplicity and cannot change.

Yeah, and? Jesus is 100% God and man. So? And God the Father is immutable. So? Can one say the same about the LDS God or Christ?

Further the God of Thomas Aquinas that you are espousing here lives outside of time in one eternal now.  Thus can God change the past present or future if they are all before Him at once?  Is he omnipotent in this one eternal now?  Can he change the fact that the Israelites crossed the red see on dry ground?  For God the Israelites are crossing the red sea as I type this.  If he changes that then will what I am typing change to?

One more time, this has nothing to do with Aquinas. It has to do with biblical revelation. Nevertheless, your questions make no sense. What does changing temporal events have to do with affecting God's omnipresence, omnipotence, or omniscience? Nothing. God is still omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, perfectly, immutably, and impassibly.

The problem with systematic theology is it is a house of cards.  One flaw in it and the whole house tumbles.

The real problem, though, is that you haven't shown where the flaw exists, and have continue to actually deal with the LDS "house of cards" that is fraught with "flaws," starting with the person of God, who in the LDS view, needs more and more things external to himself to exist.

If God needs nothing then he must logically be and actuality, simple and impassable.  And the Bible does not seem to support that.  Creating creature as he has dismisses and possibility of impassibility.  Thus if he is no impassable He really does need something.

T, you really need to slow down and type whatever you're going to type in a readable fashion. Anyway, you are correct in stating that God needs nothing, and is pure actuality, and impassible. And the Bible does support such a position.

Acts 17:24 "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;

Psalm 102:26 "Even they will perish, but Thou dost endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing Thou wilt change them, and they will be changed. 27 "But Thou art the same, And Thy years will not come to an end.

Hebrews 1:10 And, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Thy hands; 11 They will perish, but Thou remainest; And they all will become old as a garment, 12 And as a mantle Thou wilt roll them up; As a garment they will also be changed. But Thou art the same, And Thy years will not come to an end."

Exodus 3:14 And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

By their manner of speaking [the Gnostics], they ascribe those things which apply to men to the Father of all, whom they also declare to be unknown to all; and they deny that He himself made the world, to guard against attributing want of power to Him; while, at the same time, they endow Him with human affections and passions. But if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men.  For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those affections and passions which operate among men. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good

[PD1]

Sorry PD1,

Your "immaterial" God doesn't "exist" at all.

And your God needs materialism in order to exist, right?

If something doesnt have protons electrons and neutrons it does not exist and is a vacuum.

So nice to see that you've reduced your God to protons, electrons, and neutrons.

[Zakuska]

At least he's not a figment of my imagination.

By their manner of speaking [the Gnostics], they ascribe those things which apply to men to the Father of all, whom they also declare to be unknown to all; and they deny that He himself made the world, to guard against attributing want of power to Him; while, at the same time, they endow Him with human affections and passions. But if they had known the Scriptures, and been taught by the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men.

[PD1]

Well, your God has been found out to be an idol, created in the image of man.

My God is not an idol.  Man was created in His image.

How can man be created in the image of God, when a man who later become the LDS God preceded himself? That doesn't make any sense.

[Zakuska]

Did not God proceed man?

Gen 5

1 THIS is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3

[PD1]

PD1, I believe you would have made an Excellent Pharisee. You are one of the individuals being addresed in Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D.Ricks book : Offenders For A Word, How Anti Mormans play word games to attack the Latter Day Saints, Thanks for continuing to fullfill prophecy. Your rhetorical polemics have been addressed numerous times by others LDS who have responded to this type of attack made by others.

T, don't flatter yourself, and those you hold up as models of excellence in addressing the criticisms of LDS theology. You haven't genuinely addressed the subject as you should, and certainly neither have the FARMS people. In fact, if the LDS have an achilles heel (in reality, they have several) it is in their lack of being able to cogently expound upon the person of God. And because of that, many of the current LDS will become Christians one day, perhaps even to the degree of what recently happened with the WCG (Worldwide Church of God). It will be glorious!

[Outshined]

All the current LDS are Christians right now, as far as I can see...

[Teancum]

I am sorry for the poor typing. I am rather busy right now and am not proofing as I should.

Now, I will tell you,

If you are going to be a snot:

Just pick up your Bible, read what it says, and think about it for a change.

I will pass on further discussions.

Other wise I can tell you that I am interested in reasonable discussion and really understanding this better.

I will admit that I am an armature in the philosophic things we are discussing. And no, not all of this is straight forward and easily imputed from the Bible.

So, do you want to be arrogant and snotty, or are you interested in really talking about this.

My question is this.

If God needs nothing but he has anger, love, emotions about His creation then how can he be impassible. It seems to me that the two are inextricably linked.

Also, you state:

Sorry, but "express image" has nothing to do with physicality.  And the incarnation of the Son was for the redemption of humanity, and not to express the physical constitution of God the Father.

Why is that? How do you conclude that? The literal read is a better read? Why are you literal in the issue of aseity and not this?

Teancum

[PD1]

PD1,

God didn't shoot the gun, but he did take his life. 

1) Then God is a murdered and is therefore not worthy of worship.

First, it was Joseph claiming to be better than Jesus, and now you're accusing God of murder. That's okay, I'll just stick by my definition of pomposity, and suggest that you better start looking over your shoulder.

2) No.  God did not take his life... if God would have taken his life he would have fallen over dead.  Like Ananaias and Saphira ... or the thousands that the angel slew.  Or King herod.

Of course, God always ends people's lives in exactly the same manner, doesn't he. Like I said, better start looking over your shoulder, for we have a real good idea what happens to those who become just a little too presumptuous.

You are justifying Murder PD1?  Don't tell me... You advocate bombing... hospitals and clinics too?

I'm just letting you know whose in control of all that takes place. And when someone starts exalting themselves to the level, or beyond, of God, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit, then it always comes back to haunt them. Just look at what happened to Joseph Smith, or Jim Jones, or David Koresh, or any one of a variety of individuals who exhibited similar kinds of "pomposity."

Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.

Isaiah 14:13 "But you said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. 14 'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' 15 "Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, To the recesses of the pit.

[Zakuska]

No... You accused God of Murder.

You said...

God didn't shoot the gun, but he did take his life.

[Tanyan]

Why would a Baptist minister have murder in his heart to take a life ?. I thought THE LORD OF LIFE said "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, BLESS THEM THAT CURSE YOU". Remember, murders do not inherit Eternal Life [Christian or not].

Is That Baptist Minister that led the mob with his face painted black with murder in his heart to murder Joseph Smith going [or is in] Heaven ?, Answer the question, quit avoiding it . Tell us pray tell.

[PD1]

Did not God proceed man?

Gen 5

1 THIS is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3