Is There A God?


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

<div class='quotemain'>

BTW (PC) G-d is the only one I know that has ultimate power – I do not believe ultimate power ultimately corrupts. Selfishness ultimately corrupts.The Traveler

Lord Acton was speaking in the context of human politics. In the spiritual realm, you may be right. However, the reason I will never support a specifically Christian political party is that the Church had its crack and raw political power, and muffed up a few centuries quite badly.

Politics are a whole other issue by itself - You might find the book "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat an interesting read. You can buy it at Amazon for 3 or 4 bucks. This is the single most powerful book I have read on how the "Law" ought to be used. And it is a simple read - not hard to understand and short enough to read in a single evening. You will find why power in politics corrupts. There are a few simple principles that if followed establish just law. For example the first need for law is to protect the innocent. The second order of law is to punish the guilty. Using the force of law for any other purpose (regardless of how needful or beneficial it seems) will result in abuse of political power (punishing the innocent and/or protecting the guilty).

I wanted to add one other thought going on in this thread for your consideration. Considering the concept or doctrine of "As man is G-d once was - and as G-d is man may become". Consider this as an expression or view of the life and sacrifice then the ressurection of the Messiah.

The Traveler

I think God is spelled "G O D" not "G-D". There is something unsettling about that to me.

No matter what we are Father's children and those who choose to believe in a vaporous, vague, power,etc. as the father of thier souls, go for it. Somethings are true whether you believe them or not. B)

I do not feel the need to express all of my reasons as to why I represent G-d on the internet as I do, but I would point out something interesting for you to think about. In every case of ever ancient text - Never is the L-rd's name or title spelled our completly. We can speculate the reason for this but I wonder what they could of known then that has somehow been lost in our day.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to add one other thought going on in this thread for your consideration. Considering the concept or doctrine of "As man is G-d once was - and as G-d is man may become". Consider this as an expression or view of the life and sacrifice then the ressurection of the Messiah.

The Traveler

That is a marvelous perception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

Or in other words, once you know Jesus Christ does have a body, while also knowing that Jesus Christ is indeed God, there should be nothing stopping you from knowing that God does indeed have a body.

One of the doctrines that is a "divide" is this issue of whether God is three persons in one essence, or three persons in three essences. Mormons make a much more definite partition between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, than does the rest of Christianity. Argued too rigidly, the three-essences position becomes tritheism. As FYI, most of Christianity believes that God never had a body until the incarnation of Jesus. Furthermore, we would see the "image of God" verses, of necessity, speaking of character, moral drive, etc., not a body, since we do not believe he has one. Likewise, Mormons see "image" and read "body" because they do believe he has one. The verses can be read both ways, but for the first 3300 years of Judeo-Christian practice, very few ever read of the Father as being corporeal.

The question was whether or not God has a body in form like that of Man, so if you state that the Son did and does while the Father never did or will, you would then be stating that there is that distinction between “them”.

And btw, when God created Man in the beginning of the creations of this Earth, God created Man in the image or form of an “us”, so along with telling us that God was an “us” in the beginning, God also told us the image or form of that “us”.

And yes I do believe some things about God that you and others do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question was whether or not God has a body in form like that of Man, so if you state that the Son did and does while the Father never did or will, you would then be stating that there is that distinction between “them”.

We're all agreed that there are three persons in the Trinity, so we should all be comfortable speaking of the Father and Son as "them." The question is whether they are one essence or three.

And btw, when God created Man in the beginning of the creations of this Earth, God created Man in the image or form of an “us”, so along with telling us that God was an “us” in the beginning, God also told us the image or form of that “us”.

So, if non-LDS theology is correct, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all noncorporeal prior to the incarnation, than that image would, of necessity, not refer to physical characteristics. Of course, if your theology is correct, it well could.

BTW: My guess is that if one relegates his/her studies to the Holy Bible, s/he could never teach with certainty one way or the other about God's physical nature. However, Jews and Christians have always found more reason to discern that God is incorporeal. So, the veracity of the Mormon view here seems to hinge largely on the validity of Joseph Smith's revelations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class='quotemain'>

The question was whether or not God has a body in form like that of Man, so if you state that the Son did and does while the Father never did or will, you would then be stating that there is that distinction between “them”.

We're all agreed that there are three persons in the Trinity, so we should all be comfortable speaking of the Father and Son as "them." The question is whether they are one essence or three.

Okay, then answer that question while explaining what you mean by “essence”.

<div class='quotemain'>

And btw, when God created Man in the beginning of the creations of this Earth, God created Man in the image or form of an “us”, so along with telling us that God was an “us” in the beginning, God also told us the image or form of that “us”.

So, if non-LDS theology is correct, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all noncorporeal prior to the incarnation, than that image would, of necessity, not refer to physical characteristics. Of course, if your theology is correct, it well could.

I think you need to think this through a little bit more, because there is no indication that the image of God “would, of necessity, not” refer to “physical” characteristics.

Or in other words, the image or form of both God and Man, with that image or form referring to the form of a body with a torso and head and arms and legs and all other body parts, could easily refer to the form of either a physical or spiritual body, “without, of necessity” eliminating the fact that the form of Man is in God’s image.

BTW: My guess is that if one relegates his/her studies to the Holy Bible, s/he could never teach with certainty one way or the other about God's physical nature. However, Jews and Christians have always found more reason to discern that God is incorporeal. So, the veracity of the Mormon view here seems to hinge largely on the validity of Joseph Smith's revelations.

If you’re suggesting that a person cannot come to a knowledge of all the truth we now have available from God on this issue by studying ONLY the Holy Bible, then of course I will agree. And I also agree that a lot of truth was restored through the prophet Joseph Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think God is spelled "G O D" not "G-D". There is something unsettling about that to me. No matter what we are Father's children and those who choose to believe in a vaporous, vague, power,etc. as the father of thier souls, go for it. Somethings are true whether you believe them or not. B)

It's something that is important to Traveler. But one thing that I believe it quite unsettling, especially on this board, is double "quoting". Many here consider it blasphemous!! :P

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share