Sir Isaac Newton against Trinity

[prisonchaplain]

It is my personal belief that the idea that the basic concepts to understand G-d cannot be understood by man is very misleading on two accounts.

IMHO, you misrepresent the claim of Trinitarians. God is greater than we are, so his nature remains somewhat a mystery. It is beyond us. But that is not to say we cannot understand "basic concepts." What we describe as poetry and mystery, you redefine as ignorance--a negative--a pejorative. We actually take comfort and hope in knowing that our God is greater than we are.

First because man was created by G-d in his image and likeness by such creation it is inherent in man to understand the true G-d to which he was created in the image of. If man was truly in G-d’s image and likeness he could understand G-d. Why would G-d create man unable to understand that which is most important to man.

And yet Paul tells us that today we see through a glass dimly. When Christ returns, we shall see and know him as he is. So, yes, there comes a day when we shall know so much more than we do now. But again, the mystery of God should not be portrayed as God's hiding from us and keeping us ignorant. Scripture is pretty clear that it is we who repeatedly hide ourselves from him.

[Maureen]

...The potter can make a useful and beautiful vase from clay, yet cannot bring it fully to life...

That is not true, God's grace through the atonement gives us the fullness of life.

M.

[rameumptom]

That is not true, God's grace through the atonement gives us the fullness of life.

M.

But for LDS a "fullness of life" means life as God lives it: godhood, divinization.

For those who follow the Trinity, God does not or cannot make us exactly as He is, so we cannot experience a "fullness" as He does. We get something different.

As I said, the pot remains remolded clay. It does not become like its maker.

[prisonchaplain]

We all expect a glorious end, but these are two very different visions. On the one hand, trinitarians teach that we are God's highest creation--his masterpieces. We should revel and glory in that--rejoice and be exceedingly glad. On the other hand, the LDS vision is that we shall discover we are literally the children of God, and we shall become what he currently is. For trinitarians such a hope will seem misguided, perhaps dangerous, and some will even consider it blasphemous. For LDS, the trinitarian vision must seem limited, and, to some extent, an eternal separation from Heavenly Father (one definition of hell, btw).

Heady stuff.

[marts1]

(one definition of hell, btw).

Thats true in one sense, but I would prefer to use the word dammed instead, which might sound just as bad I guess. I think in this instance it matters far more how we live then what we believe, in terms of good or bad.

[prisonchaplain]

I think in this instance it matters far more how we live then what we believe, in terms of good or bad.

It's useless to believe the right things and do the wrong things. Likewise, it's potentially dangerous to work hard for the wrong beliefs. So, it's certainly blessed to "Choose the Right." WHO we believe in is vitally important, though.

Of course, we all believe in Jesus, Son of God, Jehovah himself. However, men, who say they are his ambassadors give us two different understandings of Christ's purposes. WHAT they taught is one matter. Doctrine. Ultimately both sides are plausible. One has a much greater following, but the other has its appeal. At the end of the day Robert Millet (BYU dean) got it right. The essential question is whether Joseph Smith really heard from God or not--and whether he faithfully transmitted what he heard, or perhaps got carried away.

As Protestants and Catholics, if we are wrong we'll get mostly what we expect out of heaven. Only the physical presence of God the Father will be absent. And yet, we believe him to be Spirit, and that when we see Jesus we see the Father. So, in LDS terms, we're pretty much aiming for the Terrestial Kingdom, anyway.

If LDS are wrong, my hope is that the sincere among you will find God pleased with that sincerity--that hungering and thirsting after righteousness. Then, irregardless of what would turn out to be some of the errors in belief, you might yet here, "Enter into my kingdom good and faithful servants."

My daughter tore my heart out yesterday. This nine year old was in tears because some people would accept the Antichrist's mark and go to hell. She repeatedly said that if she could have but one wish it would be that nobody would take that mark, and everyone would go to heaven. I believe that's God's heart as well. I'm no universalist, but I won't revel in anyone's damnation.

Apologies for the rambling nature of this post...it's good therapy.

[Traveler]

....

My daughter tore my heart out yesterday. This nine year old was in tears because some people would accept the Antichrist's mark and go to hell. She repeatedly said that if she could have but one wish it would be that nobody would take that mark, and everyone would go to heaven. I believe that's God's heart as well. I'm no universalist, but I won't revel in anyone's damnation.

Apologies for the rambling nature of this post...it's good therapy.

First - I would like to point out how much I value your opinion. Almost everything you post - I read and consider. I try very hard to understand and get a grip about what you believe and why.

This really concerns me. The idea that someone has taken the Anti-Christ mark and will go to hell. One interesting statement Jesus makes just before his death concerning those that had done the most unthinkable evil - sought to kill G-d. What is more unthinkable and evil than that? But what were his words? Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

Do you and your children really believe that someone can - despite in every other way possible; loving their brother and doing good to others ect ect. Do you really believe that someone will go to hell that does not really and truely understand and desire what they choose? Was Jesus pursuing a lie when he asked for forgiveness for those that do not know what they are doing?

Can someone ignorantly take the Anti-Christ mark any more than (as Paul said) someone can ignorantly serve G-d with outany idea what they are doing?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

We all expect a glorious end, but these are two very different visions. On the one hand, trinitarians teach that we are God's highest creation--his masterpieces. We should revel and glory in that--rejoice and be exceedingly glad. On the other hand, the LDS vision is that we shall discover we are literally the children of God, and we shall become what he currently is. For trinitarians such a hope will seem misguided, perhaps dangerous, and some will even consider it blasphemous. For LDS, the trinitarian vision must seem limited, and, to some extent, an eternal separation from Heavenly Father (one definition of hell, btw).

Heady stuff.

Just to make sure - Do Trinitarians really believe that man is the best that G-d can do at creation of something in HIS likeness and image? What then is the purpose of man's redemption? When I asked this before you said that man is the created and can never create. Just want to make sure. You Trinitarians believe man as blasphemous to even think or try to understand anything about creation? Any scientific pursuit of knowledge of how things are created is evil and blasphemous. This is odd because the scriptures speek of such things - where then must the line be drawn in understanding G-d and his works and when do we stop "following" G-d and what he does? Anything that has to do with new life (like having children)?

The Traveler

[FunkyTown]

Just to make sure - Do Trinitarians really believe that man is the best that G-d can do at creation of something in HIS likeness and image? What then is the purpose of man's redemption? When I asked this before you said that man is the created and can never create. Just want to make sure. You Trinitarians believe man as blasphemous to even think or try to understand anything about creation? Any scientific pursuit of knowledge of how things are created is evil and blasphemous. This is odd because the scriptures speek of such things - where then must the line be drawn in understanding G-d and his works and when do we stop "following" G-d and what he does? Anything that has to do with new life (like having children)?

The Traveler

Can God create a rock so heavy, even He can't lift it?

To a Trinitarian, you're asking an absurd question with that, just like the question of if man is the best He can do.

Man is not blasphemous to even think or try to understand anything about creation. To say that PC suggested this is a dangerous tack, designed to obfuscate the obvious:

To a Trinitarian, Man's purpose is God's glory. You see that as standing in God's shadow.

I would see it as standing in His light. I would suspect PC does as well.

[Traveler]

Can God create a rock so heavy, even He can't lift it?

To a Trinitarian, you're asking an absurd question with that, just like the question of if man is the best He can do.

Man is not blasphemous to even think or try to understand anything about creation. To say that PC suggested this is a dangerous tack, designed to obfuscate the obvious:

To a Trinitarian, Man's purpose is God's glory. You see that as standing in God's shadow.

I would see it as standing in His light. I would suspect PC does as well.

I do not think you comprehend my question. G-d cannot create (reverse engineer) anything that already exists?

Let me make this simple. What can G-d do; that man cannot? Is the answer - to create? If so there are problems with the identity of G-d prior to the creation. There are also problems with the idea or concept that we should follow Him. Even though Jesus said, "Come follow me". He really did not mean to follow him because following him is the rock to heavy to lift?

Symbolism like standing in his light can only have meaning if there is truth that can be understood and attached to it. The question therefore is - what is the truth of G-d? If we are just "pets" kept to amuse and give glory - then why should we inferior things think we can learn of and be "one" with something so superior there can be nothing common? If there is commonality what is it and where does the scriptures tell us there is difference that cannot ever (in all eternity) be bridged?

The logic goes both ways - we cannot be in the image and likeness of something forever foreign and absolutely unknowable to us. So which is it? Are we really in his image and likeness or is that a misconception and a pretend fairy tail because there is something fundamentally different to prevent it from being real?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Do you and your children really believe that someone can - despite in every other way possible; loving their brother and doing good to others ect ect. Do you really believe that someone will go to hell that does not really and truely understand and desire what they choose? Was Jesus pursuing a lie when he asked for forgiveness for those that do not know what they are doing?

Can someone ignorantly take the Anti-Christ mark any more than (as Paul said) someone can ignorantly serve G-d with outany idea what they are doing?

The Traveler

No...as I explained to her, those who take the mark will do so knowingly, because they hate God. I am convinced that the mark will not be something subtle, or presented deceitfully. This one will be open rebellion. "We'll show this God who is in control of our destiny!!" And, if I am not mistaken, the Revelation does say that there is no hope for those who take that mark.

[Maureen]

...If we are just "pets" kept to amuse and give glory - then why should we inferior things think we can learn of and be "one" with something so superior there can be nothing common?...

If that's how you have perceived how non-LDS Christians see their relationship with God, after reading so many posts on this forum on that very subject, then that is a shame.

M.

[prisonchaplain]

Just to make sure - Do Trinitarians really believe that man is the best that G-d can do at creation of something in HIS likeness and image?

Well...it's the best he has done.

What then is the purpose of man's redemption? When I asked this before you said that man is the created and can never create. Just want to make sure. You Trinitarians believe man as blasphemous to even think or try to understand anything about creation? Any scientific pursuit of knowledge of how things are created is evil and blasphemous.

No, you seem to be drawing some erroneous conclusions. We believe that only God is the Creator. But, you must also remember that He did so, in our thinking, out of nothing. We admire science, as the study of God's creation. What a tribute, for us to study and marvel at what He's done. And there is no blasphemy in innovation, in invention.

[Justice]

I guess I simply disagree. People block out memories as a psychological defense. Further, just as LDS teach that we have "a veil of forgetfulness" that keeps us from remembering premortality, why would it be impossible for Jesus to put on a veil of humanity that limits his knowledge? You say he could not by definition. I'm not sure why you insist on that.

From the perspective that Christ was born as an infant into the world, yes, He passed through the veil and forgot His former existence. Although His birth here was a condescension, and Christ no-doubt was the epitomy of humilty in the pre-earth life, humility had nothing to do with His forgetting, it was passing through the veil and birth into mortality, just the same as the rest of us.

I don't think it's impossible. I would never attempt to argue with you that anything is impossible to God. However, what I'm arguing is that the truth of the matter has been revealed, and it did not happen that way according to what has been revealed.

[Justice]

If that's how you have perceived how non-LDS Christians see their relationship with God, after reading so many posts on this forum on that very subject, then that is a shame.

M.

I view it as this as well. Not in a demeaning way, because we have pets and I love them dearly.

But, the point we are making is that even loved pets (or loved creations) can NEVER be the same as literal offspring.

...never!

It's not that we question that God can love us as "created entities," it's that we believe it can never be to the depth of sacrificing His own Son for them, unless they were offspring.

Would you let your only son die to save your pet's life? Many say that is what makes God's love for us so remarkable. But, if we truly were His creations, offering His Son as a sacrifice for us would be wrong.

Why would God make a law that requires His creations to be saved by sacrificing His Son?

He wouldn't.

It is MUCH more logical and believable that God is a parent taking advantage of the ONLY way His children could be saved, or retuned to Him. His greatest offspring, the only one who was good enough to make the offering, volunteered. It could not have been required of Him, but voluntary.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Justice

[Moksha]

If only Newton had the Trinity drop on his head.

In which case, we would have a theory that would enable us to meld chocolate, peanut butter and Johnny Depp.

[Justice]

Let me make this simple. What can G-d do; that man cannot? Is the answer - to create? If so there are problems with the identity of G-d prior to the creation.

YES!

Thank you for saying this. I have a big problem with the whole idea of there ever being a time when only God existed. I wish people would ponder more about it, because I feel there are fundamental problems that even we lesser intelligent beings can see.

What made God move from being alone to creating things?

Why didn't He do it an eternity ago? What did He learn or decide at that moment?

[prisonchaplain]

I do not think you comprehend my question. G-d cannot create (reverse engineer) anything that already exists?

Let me make this simple. What can G-d do; that man cannot? Is the answer - to create? If so there are problems with the identity of G-d prior to the creation.

How so? God does not need creation to be God.

There are also problems with the idea or concept that we should follow Him. Even though Jesus said, "Come follow me". He really did not mean to follow him because following him is the rock to heavy to lift?

I hate to be puny, but I'm not following you. Are you suggesting that when Jesus said "Follow me," he must have meant that we are to become Gods?

Symbolism like standing in his light can only have meaning if there is truth that can be understood and attached to it. The question therefore is - what is the truth of G-d? If we are just "pets" kept to amuse and give glory - then why should we inferior things think we can learn of and be "one" with something so superior there can be nothing common?

You take trinitarian shock at LDS aspirations to Godhood and throw it back at us. I actually appreciate this. Ironically, a Christian fiction writer took this very tact in his end times novel. He suggested that Antichrist would play on human pride by suggesting that it was a malevolent God who would attempt to eternally subject his creation to groveling worship of him. See The Christ Clone Trilogy for a very interesting read on this subject.

If there is commonality what is it and where does the scriptures tell us there is difference that cannot ever (in all eternity) be bridged?

Our commonality is in our emotions, our capacity to love--in that the imageo dei is within us. Nevertheless, Dueteronomy 6:4 is an eternal truth--Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. There is no one like our God.

The logic goes both ways - we cannot be in the image and likeness of something forever foreign and absolutely unknowable to us. So which is it? Are we really in his image and likeness or is that a misconception and a pretend fairy tail because there is something fundamentally different to prevent it from being real?

The Traveler

I'll never be Korean. I can't be. I knew a white person who tried. He learned the language fluently. He learned the culture--even the politics. He became active in the farmers' movement back in the early 1980s. One day, he was in downtown Taejon, doing some shopping. A little Korean boy yells to his mother [translation] "Mommy, look! An American person!" At that moment the revelation hit him. He may know more about Korea than most Koreans. He may be fluent in the language, the culture, the very milieu that is Korea. But he's still a white American.

I can learn to choose the right, discern the will of God, love expansively. I can master Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, memorize whole books of scripture. And yet, at some point it's gotta hit me. I will always look to my God. The New Agers are wrong. It will never be the God that is within me. Rather, the God without who chooses to reside within. God comes to me and not from me.

Edited March 25, 2010 by prisonchaplain

[Traveler]

How so? God does not need creation to be God.

I hate to be puny, but I'm not following you. Are you suggesting that when Jesus said "Follow me," he must have meant that we are to become Gods?

You take trinitarian shock at LDS aspirations to Godhood and throw it back at us. I actually appreciate this. Ironically, a Christian fiction writer took this very tact in his end times novel. He suggested that Antichrist would play on human pride by suggesting that it was a malevolent God who would attempt to eternally subject his creation to groveling worship of him. See The Christ Clone Trilogy for a very interesting read on this subject.

Our commonality is in our emotions, our capacity to love--in that the imageo dei is within us. Nevertheless, Dueteronomy 6:4 is an eternal truth--Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. There is no one like our God.

I'll never be Korean. I can't be. I knew a white person who tried. He learned the language fluently. He learned the culture--even the politics. He became active in the farmers' movement back in the early 1980s. One day, he was in downtown Taejon, doing some shopping. A little Korean boy yells to his mother [translation] "Mommy, look! An American person!" At that moment the revelation hit him. He may know more about Korea than most Koreans. He may be fluent in the language, the culture, the very milieu that is Korea. But he's still a white American.

I can learn to choose the right, discern the will of God, love expansively. I can master Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, memorize whole books of scripture. And yet, at some point it's gotta hit me. I will always look to my God. The New Agers are wrong. It will never be the God that is within me. Rather, the God without who chooses to reside within. God comes to me and not from me.

Very interesting - some day when we both have time - I would like to drill down and follow some of your understandings. Especilly your belief that G-d created Koreans as something very different from white Americans. I believe something that conflicts with such a notion. In essence the differences that many see are not real and are nothing more than perceptions and prejudices - not racial because I believe there is only one race of mankind.

I am on the road and occupied enough that I do not have the time to respond to this as you as a true friend deserve.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

In which case, we would have a theory that would enable us to meld chocolate, peanut butter and Johnny Depp.

Moksha, would Elphaba be the sole consumer of this trinitarian confection? Could you not add Glenn Beck to the chocolate and peanut butter for the rest of us?

[Elphaba]

Moksha, would Elphaba be the sole consumer of this trinitarian confection? Could you not add Glenn Beck to the chocolate and peanut butter for the rest of us?

Elphaba already is the sole consumer of this trinitarian confection. Well, other than that skinny twig with the funny teeth my Johnny is married to, I am his only confection, and know for a fact he never, ever, no way Jose, allows any other woman to consume him.

Although, I have to say, Moksha, you just ruined it all by mentioning Glenn Beck.

Elph