Traveler

The concept of first cause has the same problem as the Big Bang. That problem is the event horizon. The event horizon is that point at which we cannot see or comprehend (logically conclude) what happened before. Take for example the creation. Many religious theories define G-d as the creator, but this is a two edge sword. Before the creation, what was G-d? He was not a creator? Therefore if creation is what defines G-d for you and since there was not a creator prior to creation so therefore there was no G-d. Regardless of how you shape it there was no creating G-d. And since G-d is eternal something would have to change him or there would be no creation because prior to the first cause, there was no creation. If G-d is the first cause then prior to the creation there was no G-d. Next is the problem of G-d being all wise. But if creation was wise there was no all wisdom before the creation. At least wisdom that created which was lacking in G-d. We can play this game with just about anything with which most religions define G-d. And the problem gets worse. Most modern religions believe G-d is eternal which also means the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. If that is the case then the creation cannot be the beginning but instead an isotropic constant which itself is eternal. If G-d is eternal and does not change then everything he does is in reality also eternal - there can be no such thing as a beginning as most religions define it.. I find the concept G-d in the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS most interesting and fun. I love the freedom of thought it brings to reach into eternity in any direction. Yet it provides a wonderful foundation for creation as well as destiny and purpose of creation that is divinely natural for man that is the very image of G-d. I like the idea that when he calls us his children that he is not pretending, just kidding, exaggerating or just being in any way deceptive - he is divulging a great secret and a eternal truth that has no beginning. The Traveler

I have often wondered: If you were to be arrested and accused of being a Christian is there enough evidence to convict you? My wife tells me that if I have to explain a joke then the joke is not very funny. :) If you have to explain that you are a Christian (or make apology) expecially to other truly Christian - perhaps you are not what you think you are. The Traveler

In defence of Ray - Jesus entered into some interesting discussions with the Scribes and Pharisees and although I believe there were converts among the Scribes and Pharisees - I do not think they came from these discussions. It is quite possible that the main reason for these discussions is for people of faith to recognize the wolfs in our day that come in sheep clothing intending to do harm to those with who they do not agree. The Traveler

Traveler, you've struck upon a conversation I've been having here, and at the Religion (Re: Mormonism) at hannity.com. And that is: To LDS the only real heaven is the Celestial Kingdom. No matter how "glorious" or "satisfactory" the Telestial/Terrestial kingdoms may be--they lack a key ingredient--the presence of God the Father! That said, if I'm wrong about the nature of humanity and God, I, like most folk, would be "happy" to be corrected at the pearly gates, and then granted entry into the Celestial Kingdom. If you find it unreasonable that evangelicals question the orthodoxy--and by implication the salvation--of LDS, because of belief that God was once a man and that humanity can become God, I would find it equally unreasonable that I might be denied entry into the eternal presence of my heavenly Father, because I misunderstood such metaphysical concepts. My friend: I cannot answer for any belief other than my own. I have come to believe in this life that our destiny is not so much what we gather and choose along the way. It is not even the destination that we think we seek. It is the journey. Jesus spoke saying he is “the way” and we think of as a path to some where. I do not see this in quite those terms – but rather a “method”. The way is a method. I think you and I are a lot a like – but sometimes there seems to be a divide. Be it real or a divide of understanding – allow if you will an attempt at a bridge. I understand the first step to G-dliness as sacrifice. Sacrifice is key to understanding the nature of Christ and his atonement. Sacrifice is key to understanding anything of G-d. For example, sacrifice is key to understanding the creation. I believe that the atonement of Christ makes our sacrifices meaningful, worthwhile and divine. The Atonement enables good within us, it does not make good within us void or null. This first divine step of sacrifice is countered in evil by selfishness. Selfishness destroys the ability to find joy in sacrifice. In our physical existence it is natural to be selfish and shun sacrifice. Therefore we must learn to enjoy sacrifice even though it can bring physical pain. Jesus says we will know the joy of sacrifice only by “doing” (doing and not hearing only). In a previous post you talked of the importance of learning in this life. In a way I agreed with you but I felt you were missing a critical element. It is not just believing in G-d but loving G-d or if you will; loving sacrificing for others. If you are focused on your sacrifice as never being like the sacrifice of G-d then you will never learn the divine joy of sacrifice. When someone insists that the man-ness cannot be sacrificed for G-dness – this tells me they have not experienced the divine joy of sacrifice. I make an effort to “awaken” them to a divine possibility. I mean no offence – but I would point out something my father once told me. “You are today what you have wanted all along to be up until now.” If something needs to be changed for you to be different tomorrow you must change what you have wanted all along. Sorry I cannot explain any better. The Traveler

Turfan China (by Bicycle) to the cave of 1000 Buddha’s.

I turn 60 this year - I commute by bicycle 25 miles (one way) to work. In my younger years I have competed in sport activities. You can cay whatever you want about diets but I know for a fact that no one competes on a long term low protein (little meat) diet - they simply do not have the endurance. The Traveler

There are important reasons that there is duplication in scripture. One of the concepts is known as type and shadowing. This concept is that every story is a type and a shadow for another story. For example take the Israel leaving Egypt and going to the promise land. This is a type and shadow for your own efforts and needs to rely of G-d to leave behind the world and journey to the promised land of eternal life. Let us look at another prophetic typing and shadowing from scripture. Look at Matt 6:10 (the L-rd’s prayer). Here we learn that the events on earth have a clue to things that took place in heaven and what takes place in heaven will one day take place on earth. Remember how Satan and the host of heaven that followed Satan were cast out of Heaven? Some time in the future they will be cast out of earthly society as well. Now look at Ecclesiastes 1:9-11. This tells us that everything that we see happening has happened before. All of the arguments Jesus had with the Scribes and Pharisees will occur again in our day. So you may ask yourself – who are the modern day Scribes and Pharisees of our day? Now look at Genesis 41:25 Here we learn that G-d repeats himself - Verse 32 tells us why G-d does this. Consider this reason of the L-rd and wonder why he would provide the Book of Mormon which is really a repeat of things we know from Bible Scripture. The Traveler

Hello again my friend. Some of the things you describe are in line with our understanding of being "born again". The term "born again" is a most interesting term, especially to us LDS. Born again of what? It is necessary in LDS thought that we believe we can be born again of G-d. Now some have a hard time with the extent of this concept and say that if you are born as man stuff you can never be G-d stuff. This would exclude someone from being happy in the Celestial Kingdom but with this kind of thinking one can happily being saved in the Telestial Kingdom and receive all the blessing they hope for in the salvation they seek (excluding the G-d stuff that they may not really desire for what ever reason they do not desire that which is G-dly). The Traveler

1. See Daniel 12:1 What happens to someone who's name is not found? 2. Did Jesus submit himself to ritualistic requirements? Like baptism (which was necessary for the Jews)??? I disagree that baptism is a testimony to salvation. I believe baptism is for the remission of sins. But since Jesus did not need remission of sins it was to fulfill "all rightiousness". If there are no ritualistic requirements - why did G-d command rituals? I believe that if G-d even makes a minor suggestion that he has let us know his will and that it is a sin to go against or teach contrary to the will of G-d. It is only necessary to live by every word that comes from G-d if someone intends to enjoy living with G-d. PC. We have talked about accepting and rejecting Jesus. I believe we must reject Jesus with full knowledge of what we do - the same is true of accepting him. I believe it to be a rejection of Jesus to know what he has done for us (by example) and then to deny that such example is necessary. It is enough for me to know that Jesus was baptized. What manner of men ought we to be? -- Even as "I AM". I have said all along and I still believe that every person makes choices - not by what they say they believe but what they do according to commitment. It is all a matter of desire. Those that do not desire to do as G-d has directed cannot learn to love to be directed by G-d. My advice is to consider all the advice that comes from G-d as necessary. The Traveler

This response ignores the obvious question posed in this scripture. The question being posed to Jesus was seen by the people as having two possibilities. Both possibilities are seen as having to take place prior to the man’s birth. Possibility 1. Is that the parents sinned and therefore the sin was answered upon the head of the children – There is precedence for this possibility in scripture. I am sure PC did not mean to imply that children never bare the sins of the parents – implying that there is conflict with the teaching of Jesus and scripture – he was not refuting scripture. The second possibility is that that man sinned as a spirit prior to his birth as a physical being. As we can see from other scriptures presented in this thread there was a reason for the disciples thinking this as a possibility from their scriptures. One of the most important notions being ignored has to do with the time, place and culture that this question was posed to Jesus. The Mid Eastern Suzerain servant – vassal structure of kingdoms and law was well understood as the governing means of all countries and societies of that time period. The scriptures used this model to inform believers in the G-d of Israel that G-d’s system of law and order for both heaven and earth is to be compared to this order of Kingdoms with which they were familiar. The scriptures do not infer that our current democratic (representative) society is compatible and therefore we are at a great disadvantage in understanding and interpreting scriptures that relate to kingdoms and how punishments were metered. Under Suzerain Law of kingdoms, disloyal subjects were punished by being made blind (as per Sampson). There is more about this concerning disloyal subjects but I do not what to get side tracked. We need to understand that this is why the question is asked here and not at other times with other afflictions. The concept of a spirit existence prior to birth for man was not uncommon at the time of Jesus among the Jewish people. They interpreted the scriptures to mean that very thing. Not only do we have this scripture to demonstrate this point but we have a vast amount of literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls that also demonstrates this concept was prevalent at the time of Jesus. But there is even more because this concept exists across many ancient societies. The point I am trying to make here is that anciently it was uncommon to not believe in a spirit life before birth. Most Christians (and other religions) agree that there is life in the womb prior to birth indicating that birth is not the creation even though it is used as an argument here (For example most Christians oppose adoration as a form of killing) . There are also problems with the concept that creation takes place at conception because many Christians believe Adam was created complete in human form – There is less precedence in scripture that man to day is created different than Adam than there is for a spirit existence prior to birth. Yet that is swallowed hook line and sinker with no scripture or ancient culture president but not the ancient concept of spirits of man existing prior to birth and that all mankind are creations of G-d in the same manner Adam was. Now Jesus did not refute any doctrine in his answer. He simply said that for this case – and this case only the reason was so that G-d could be glorified. He did not teach that children will never bear the burdens of their parents (common in scripture) nor did he teach that spirits of man do not exist before birth – both are ture. Now to my reason for posting and I believe this to be very important. There are two very different core doctrines being taught by the various concepts presented. One is that mankind are really physical beings trying to have a spiritual experience with G-d. If this is true then the scripture in Genesis that says man (being a physical being) is created in G-d’s image implies that G-d is also a physical being. The other concept (to which I hold) is that mankind is really spiritually beings trying to understand and make sense of a physical experience – by listening to this spiritual core that defines us we can find G-d and our way in this physical realm. I also believe that spirits are not born of physical parents and therefore when we die – that spirit (which is eternal) lives on and cannot die in the same sense that our physical self dies. The death of the spirit is to be separated from G-d. The Traveler

If a being has always been, and had no start, it wasn't created. God might transform the being, but He would not be creating it. On the other hand, if we do have beginnings, then I suppose instead of saying we are eternal, we might become eternal. Or, you could just say I will be living forever and ever. Let us be clear - I am talking about "Eternal Life" - See John 3:15. According to what you posted G-d cannot do this any more that make a stone he cannot lift. I think this argument has a serious flaw. If you like you can realize a woops, declair "king's X" and start this over. :) The Traveler

Essential to this discussion are two understandings of the non-LDS Christian belief system: 1. Humans have no premortal existence. 2. God is unchanging, and was never a man or like a man--He was and is and is to come--the same yesterday, today, and forever. That said, it becomes one of those nonsense questions to ask, "Can the eternal God take a created, limited being and turn it into an eternal, unlimited one? I suppose He could create an eternal past and paste it to the created being, but we quickly degenerate into absurdities. The LDS position is a package deal--it requires that humans have an eternal premortal existence. Furthermore, it makes much more sense IF the Heavenly Father is an evolving God. Your thinking has a serious flaw. Note where you say {Can the eternal God take a created, limited being and turn it into an eternal, unlimited one? I suppose He could create an eternal past and paste it to the created being, but we quickly degenerate into absurdities.} If what you say is true a created being cannot have "Eternal Life". The Traveler

We can shout all we want that we are right, and others wrong, but, those with confidence will speak simply, with calm assurance, and allow the Almighty to woo those "who have ears to hear what the Spirit says to the churches." If I can get the time I would like to start a thread on this subject. Not that I really disagree with what PC tells us here – but I think he has missed the most important point. In a number of posts I have referenced the ancient mid Eastern Suzerain – Servant Vassal law and kingdoms. The scriptures tell us that G-d’s organization, both in heaven and on earth, is a Kingdom. The ancient mid Eastern Suzerain – Servant Vassal law and kingdoms is the law of Kingdoms understood at the time and place when the scriptures were written and is the context of understanding basic doctrines of Kingdoms from Abraham through Jesus Christ. When someone says that Jesus or G-d is king this is the standard measuring rod that defines what the ancients really meant as “a king”. In our day and time, most of us live in and understand representative democracy and have no experience at all with kingdom societies – even within our religious organizations that we may erroneously call a kingdom. This is because, in reality, we think of religions and religious societies in terms of the societies to which we are custom and experienced; as in terms of doctrines that “suit” us or that “appeal” to us in democratic societies. With the idea that if we have the spirit of G-d in our heart that the correct doctrines will suit or appeal to us. I believe this is a gross oversimplification of the ancient concept and the reason that many religions and sects of many religions in their sincere diversity would demonstrate this error. I am not saying to believe this makes you wrong – just that many sincere seekers of divine enlightenment somehow find divergent paths to “oneness” with G-d, employing this method, in part because they oversimplify the scriptures and the intended meaning based on what suits them or appeals to them. There is no such diversity among loyal citizens of a kingdom – or the covenant children of G-d. Within a kingdom there is no room for individual understanding or private interpretation of divine doctrines, laws and ideas in terms of concepts that suit or appeal to specific individuals. There is no “wooing” in the sense that competing servants could espouse their opinions, which the populist was left to choose which wooer is the best orator or demonstrated the most charisma to suit them. We may operate today, based on our opinions or beliefs in our democratic society but in a kingdom, such thinking is treasonous. Though it may sound harsh to us in our society, anciently punishments were considered quite standard and common in dealing with those claiming or pretending to be appointed vassals or servants of the supreme Suzerain but were not appointed or that were appointed but overstepped their appointments (remember that Jesus said he did nothing but that he was commanded by his father). The punishment was the same and applied both to those that taught the law correctly but were not properly appointed by the Suzerain or those appointed by the Suzerain that taught according to their own ideas. Both were considered traders of the Suzerain (a concept lost in modern thinking) If they were not put to death or sometimes prior to being put to death their eyes were burned out (as per Sampson) and those that supported or listened to them – their ears were burned out. Thus the saying, “those that have eyes to see and ears to hear” is in reference not so much to those that understood correct or proper doctrine as much as those that are loyal to the Suzerain and his appointed servant vassals of the kingdom. The Traveler

One point missing from your Hebrew lesson. This use in Genesis applies to a physical representative or figure. Meaning a physical copy of a physical thing. The Traveler

Yes I do say no! Because G-d lacks the power? or because he is selfish? Why do you limit G-d and what he can do? And why won't you answer this simple question? Perhaps I could understand you "no" if you would say why you think G-d can't. What scripture gave you that idea? How many do you want? and how many time do you want them? 1. According to scripture - In all creation what being was man created to be most like? Hint - it is not frogs or dogs. 2. Matt 5:48. What does the word "Perfect" mean in scripture. 3. What does it mean in the ancient world (the time when scriptures were written) for someone to take upon them the name of another? 4. What will man inherit of G-d - some part or all that he has? 5. For this I want you to look back through posts and ask yourself - what upsets you about LDS. Is it our good works? or is it that you object to our "blaspheious" doctrine that we being but a man make ourselves G-d? You did not say that did you? Now look at John 10:33. How did Jesus answer this question? Finely - in what way should we not be like G-d? The Traveler

Thought: One of the interesting concepts that came from the Roe vs. Wade decision that made abortion legal in the United States is that a human fetus (embryo) in the first trimester of existence is not human. After months and months and hundreds of expert testimonies in the fields of science, religion and social politics it was determined that an embryo is not human life. That what defines human life; including cognition, thought and ability to learn and to function as a sentient human was not present in the embryo. Thought: Though G-d created man, G-d does not referred to man as a creation. I wish in this discussion we would all concede that mankind is the “children” of G-d and that he is our “Father in Heaven”. The concept that we cannot be his “only begotten” is ill advised. G-d only had one “only begotten in the flesh” that is Jesus Christ. This is true but I would point out that being an “only begotten” is not the criteria of what a G-d is, for G-d was G-d and a complete G-d with all that defines G-d, prior to the event that produced an “only begotten”. Though you may think so, this “only begotten concept” does not define what is G-d, only something G-d has done (like the difference between a creator and a creation). Back to the human embryo. With all the arguing there was no proof that an embryo is a human. Likewise there is no proof that a human is a g-d. This however, is not the point. The point is that even though a human embryo exhibits nothing that can legally be used to identify it as human – Not one single thing (Otherwise there would be no legal abortion); so a human exhibits nothing that can be argued to identify it as a g-d. But such arguments miss what is being presented. It is not that man, as we understand him, is some kind of a g-d – it is that G-d just as G-d can make a human from an embryo, G-d can make a g-d from man. Christos says NO!! but has yet to say or admit that it is because G-d can’t (lacks the power or knowledge or ability or something) or won’t (because he is selfish and wants g-dness all to himself or really does not love us that much or he cannot stand anybody or anything like him or something else). First - the sin of Adan and Eve was not trying to become like G-d. The Sin was in being disobedient to his commandment not to take the fruit. I do not understand why you quote Satan as a reliable and truthful source. Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and that did not make them G-ds. It brought about the fall. It should be obvious that Satan was lying, again. If we can understand that man cannot overcome his fallen state or his sins without G-d’s help – why are we to think man can become “like” G-d, one with G-d or a g-d, all on his own without G-d’s help. No one can aspire to or become like G-d, especially on their own. I also submit that: as easy as G-d can make a human embryo to become a human being so can G-d make a man to become a g-d. Despite the efforts of Satan, that hates G-d and what G-d intends and plans to do with man. (This last thought is very interesting to me in that many in various religious places think that the whole purpose of man’s creation is to have man running around heaven without sins. Why would anyone, including Satan, oppose that? But if someone like Satan that thinks or even knows he is better than everybody else is suddenly faced with the prospect that the great society would be comprised of “equal” citizens – That could cause a war, even in heaven.) If G-d cannot make a g-d out of a man – then say so openly, let us all admit it – that G-d has his limitations. If he can – why do some of you oppose it as impossible? The Traveler Jesus is the answer and the proof to the question. As man is (Jesus) G-d once was. As G-d (Jesus) is , man can become. I do not understand why all other Christians have such a problem with this? The Traveler

I have raised dogs and children and I see lots of differences. I had hoped that my prejudice between people and animals would in reality shine a light. First off I would never refer to any dog (regardless of how much I love them) as one of my children (although I know people that would, I am not impressed with their perception abilities or their excuses why - I know what my wife went through for our children to have life and I think it is a dishonor to her and her sacrifice to call a dog one of my children). I will give general difference between dogs and children in hope that there can be understanding. Dogs are trained and children are taught. Furthermore, the love, loyalty, fear, etc. you think you see in dogs is more breeding and instinct - In children it is more in the upbringing and enlightened learning. I am most concerned with the "CAN"T" attitude many religious thinkers express in man's abilities to seek and master divine traits and behavior. I believe it to be true doctrine that "With G-d, all things are possible". I believe to teach otherwise is heresy and a denial of G-d, his love and kindness as well as his power. If there is something man cannot become with G-d influence, direction and help that is not a shortcoming of man but of G-d. To put it bluntly - I do not believe that a one of a kind G-d is a real G-d because such a being must lack the power or intelligence of reproduction that exist in every other existing thing. PC - I did not think I would have to explain these things to you, but since I must - Please do not take them wrong. I say them only because I think you can understand them. I am not sure if everyone on this forum can. If there is something of G-d that man should not seek, then let us speak it so we can all shun it and reject it but if G-d is what we should be then let us see it. The Traveler

Ray: You are accurate on many accounts in this thread - I have not attempted to add much to your thoughts. You ask a valid question - Hell really has not been defined - so I will take a stab at it. Hell is that state of mind and spirit to which the soles of the damned are bound. It is a prison where a sole has boundries and limitations because they have not "continued" in his (Jesus') word and therefore are not free. The only beings I know for sure are free are G-d the Father, G-d the Son and G-d the Holy Ghost. There may be other but not that I know of. The rest of us are in a state of hell in one form or another. The Traveler

I beg to differ - I do not believe dogs are loving, kind, gentle obedient, ect -- just like his/her Master. There my be some remote resemblance but this simply is not true or even close to truth. Please do not make up stuff that is not the truth and pass it off as truth - there are commandments concerning such things. I have a hard time even believeing you would even suggest such a thing. The Traveler

Please explain the difference. If I have something that in every way there is or can be like a car - we should call it a boat? Or a NOT car? The Traveler

Early on I stated my opinion that many of the common perceptions being advanced about hell are in conflict with my understanding of G-d the Father and G-d the Son (Jesus Christ). If someone is to make a list of why they worship G-d and love him on one hand and then make a list of why G-d condemns those that die in their sins to a “never ending” hell of anguish and torment – I challenge you to honestly find even a single common entry in both lists. I am convinced that those that believe the common perceptions of hell also think they are excluded. In all my life I have never talked with one person that believes they will be abandon by G-d in a never ending hell (this is odd because the general perception of the good folks is that most of the world is going to hell in a hand basket). Is there anyone that personally knows somebody well enough to pronounce them as a “no miss” candidate? Most common spoken of as the candidates for hell are those that deny or betray the Christ. It is interesting to me that on his last night before his great sacrifice, Jesus turned to his disciples and proclaimed one would betray him. Each asked in return “L-rd is it I?” They were not sure if they were candidates for never ending hell? Later that same night Jesus turned to one of his most ardent followers and said that before the morning came he would deny the Christ 3 times. Lucky for Peter he did not die shortly after his denial of Christ? The point I am trying to make is that if everyone that deserved hell were sent to hell – that is where everybody would end up. And at the same time, those of us that think there is no possibility that they will be there, proudly boast that only the truly deserving will end up in hell (as though they do not truly deserve hell – because???). Am I the only one that sees this irony? Can a sole be saved from hell? I have asked this question, I do not know how many times and gotten no real answer. Can a sole in hell that really wants deliverance be saved? The answer I get is the Rich Man and Lazarus. Interesting answer because, what was the Rich Man’s sin? – why did he deserve to be in hell? It was not that he did not go to church and it was not the he did not profess a belief in the true and living G-d (which everybody that thinks they do not deserve hell, also thinks their belief in G-d will get them out of it). Are we all is some way not like this Rich Man? Again – what irony? I am not here to convince anyone of anything – I believe you can believe what-ever you want. You may think that my opinion of hell makes it palatable. To be honest I do not think hell is such a bad place – compared to what we currently have. In fact, I am not sure that everybody will be able to tell a difference (Again – what irony?) I really believe that hell is not so bad, except what you have to give up to buy into hell. Perhaps I should state this a different way. It is what you have to give up to get out of hell. It is that you have to give up all your sins – forever to get out of hell. I think when most people are faced with that choice that there will be a couple of favorite sins they favor over G-d’s saving grace. Did I say that – I was speaking of myself as well my friends. I asked why G-d might not save a sole in hell – NO ANSWER. Is it because G-d does not have the power? Is it because G-d does not want to? The answer for me to the two questions is both “Yes and Yes” and “No and No”. No unclean can be with G-d. Not even a tiny little bitty unclean thing (that is what sin is – a unclean thing and sometimes it is just a little bitty unclean thing. How many times have I heard, “I do not think G-d will send me to hell for some little bitty sin”. Adam and Eve were cast out because they became unclean as we are all unclean and deserving of hell. The ticket out of hell? Two things: First is the atonement of Jesus Christ - that paid for the ticket (this part is all done with and paid for – for everybody). Second: Give up all your sins forever. If someone has another answer – I would sure like to hear it. The Traveler

Just a few notes: 1. Concerning the divine ranking of cherubim: The numerous scriptures give no such ranking of a cherub as suggested. There is a scripture that suggest the ranking; in designating a cherub as “anointed” which in particular Hebrew means Messiah. I would point out that this is the same ranking given to Jesus. I find this most interesting, because in every case that I have found that a cherub is linked to religious symbolism – that same symbolism is also used with Jesus. I am curious that a cherub in reality may be a divine title and not a peculiar class or kind of being. 2. I learn a lot about a person’s belief in G-d when they find out that LDS seek to become “like” G-d. For example – here we are accused of arrogance. This tells me that the person making the accusation believes that G-d is arrogant. When someone says that being like (or one with) would spawn rebellion – implies to me that they believe G-d is rebellious by nature. I find such arguments unreasonable, unfounded and desperately prejudice. I am not sure how to respond to such actuations because in all critical cases I find the accusation to be something very different that what I believe G-d to be. 3. Scriptures that indicate that G-d expects us to become like him. Matt 5:48. This can also be understood as completeness implying that in every way we should be like G-d. In addition and in light of the ancient Near Eastern Suzerain, servant or vassal relationship has direct meaning referring to a servant that has “taken upon” the name of the Suzerain. The relationship of Jesus to his followers was that of master and disciple. The word disciple is similar to apprentice. The purpose of religion is to learn of G-d and his ways – The more religious or enlightened we become the more like G-d we become – not the less like him we become. Why would anyone hold to such a ridiculous doctrine??? 4. Worship. One type of worship given is scripture is praise. Often heaven is depicted by numerous beings praising G-d. If praise is worship note that G-d himself worships the righteous in heaven with the phrase “Well done thou good and faithful servant”. 5. Satan sought to be “like” G-d. This is actually a quote from Satan whose very name is liar. This is a quote of his lie because Satan never intended to be like G-d but to end such as a possibility. 6. If someone believes that man should not be like G-d please indicate in what manner we should seek not to be like him. For example of G-d is the master and we are servants – does this mean man should never be in authority (have dominion over the plants, animals or resources of earth – or be a parent {father or mother} of children). I believe man should exercise dominion or authority in the same manner that G-d exercises dominion and authority. We should be like (one with) G-d. The Traveler

So many things here that do not make sense. 1. Where did you learn that Cherubim are angels? 2. If there was another being like G-d they (or G-d) would become rebellious? I see no logic at all in this. If G-d is rebellious how can anyone trust him. If he is not rebellious why would beings like him be rebellious? 3. There would have to be a head G-d? Why? If several bishops are united in purpose must there be one greater than all the others? Are G-d's more incapable of such things than bishops? 4. Worship would be abolished? Emulation is the highest form of worship - Worship would be divinely pure. The Traveler

Why - What about the love, compassion, willingness to forgive and grace of G-d (anything in his naturey) has convinced you of this? The Traveler

Yes - the "Get out of Hell" card in my deck is called the atonement of Christ. That card trumps everything when played. It is my belief that that card is in everybodies deck, however, it appears that some, for whatever reason, won't play it. The Traveler