Youtube Apologetics

[mordorbund]

 

Christ Himself refutes the "one substance entity" doctrine:

 --Not my will, but thine be done

--  Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father (after the resurrection)

--   The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

--   john 7 [16] Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

[17] If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

The historic Christian church has replaced the prophets and apostles with theologians and philosophers.  We accept all the word of God, including the Bible and modern revelation.

A question for you, are you going to worship the God of the Bible, or the "one substance entity" of the Nicene Creed?

 

How does the bolded refute the Nicene Creed?

[cdowis]

How does the bolded refute the Nicene Creed?

It would be helpful if you told me your understanding of the term "homoousia", as used in the Nicene Creed.  

 

Now, I use the term, "one substance entity".  Perhaps you can explain to us how a "one substance entity" is NOT one substance when Christ said He was NOT in the presence of the Father after the resurrection.  Remember that God is spirit, and resides everywhere to those who accept the Nicene Creed.

 

All of the scriptures I referenced work together to bring us to a definite conclusion.

 

A side note, it is interesting that Christ told the thief on the cross, "This day you will be with me in Paradise."  Since Christ had not yet ascended to the Father, paradise is not in the presence of the Father, but only the Son.

 

Another side note -->> the Egyptian bishops voted against the Nicene Creed and were banished by Constantine.  If you study the history of the Council of Nicea, you will realized that this document was not a religious document, but a political one.  The Christian church paid a very high price to get protection from Constantine, and they are still paying that price today.

Edited September 4, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Atheist

God can't prove he exists...what makes you think you can!

 

RESPONSE 

I have no interest in "proving it to you";  That is your responsibility, and I'm not your mother.

But I can show you how you can find out for yourself.

But you won't like it  So don't bother to respond unless you are really motivated to do something besides blathering on the Internet.  You will need to take ownership of this project.

 

(He does not yet know my religious affiliation)

Edited September 7, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

I was assuming that this guy was going to ignore me, but he didn't.  So I'll give updates if anyone is interested.

[cdowis]

CRITIC regarding my post concerning which came first, the chicken or the egg.  Yeah, I get really deep with the atheist video forums.  I've pretty much covered the antiMormon videos and now I'm working on these other videos.  The participants are much more sophisticated and actually ask questions.

 

RESPONSE

There was no "first" chicken.  There was no first egg.  They are co-eternal.  They have always existed.

The idea that God one day decided to create the universe is nonsense.  There is no beginning, there is no end to His creations.  

That's called "eternity". 

>>You said chickens live on many planets and the gods just move them around the universe,

Can I assume you are familiar with panspermia.  This is panspermia on steroids.  
Basically we don't believe in ex nihlo creation -- creation by "poof".  Matter and the laws of nature have always existed.  

This is a doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.  Just another weird belief of those Mormons.

Edited September 8, 2015 by cdowis

[Vort]

To be clear: "Panspermia" is a scientific (or parascientific, or pseudoscientific) conjecture. It is not LDS doctrine, not in any sense. We do not affirmatively believe that chickens or any other particular life form (except people) live on other planets. We believe the creations of God are endless, and that many of those creations are inhabited by life, but we don't specify what kind of life.

 

It is also worth noting that those who accept evolution (present company included) do not believe there was a "first" chicken or egg, either. This would require drawing a bright line between "pre-chicken" and "chicken" life forms, a line that does not exist or that at best would be completely arbitrary. In this vein, it is also important to keep in mind that individuals do not evolve. The term "evolution" applies to the genome of an entire species and not any individual in that species, since obviously the individual's genome is invariant.

[mordorbund]

It would be helpful if you told me your understanding of the term "homoousia", as used in the Nicene Creed.  

 

Now, I use the term, "one substance entity".  Perhaps you can explain to us how a "one substance entity" is NOT one substance when Christ said He was NOT in the presence of the Father after the resurrection.  Remember that God is spirit, and resides everywhere to those who accept the Nicene Creed.

 

All of the scriptures I referenced work together to bring us to a definite conclusion.

 

A side note, it is interesting that Christ told the thief on the cross, "This day you will be with me in Paradise."  Since Christ had not yet ascended to the Father, paradise is not in the presence of the Father, but only the Son.

 

Another side note -->> the Egyptian bishops voted against the Nicene Creed and were banished by Constantine.  If you study the history of the Council of Nicea, you will realized that this document was not a religious document, but a political one.  The Christian church paid a very high price to get protection from Constantine, and they are still paying that price today.

 

I invit our resident Trinitarians to correct me where I'm mistaken (for my own benefit), but wouldn't be surprised if they're ignoring this thread altogether.

 

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same substance - that oneness of substance is homoousia. My understanding of substance or ousia (from my readings of Plato) is that it is the ideal of the thing.

 

In graphics, you may have a single chair definition that you render multiple times and translate and transform around the table. Each chair has its own unique properties beyond position and size. It may also have color or may be missing a leg. That doesn't change it from being a chair because it comes from the chair definition of pattern. So also Man has a substance that defines the ideal man, while each individual man is a rendering of that ideal that contains variations because of the fallen and imperfect elements involved. Man, by that substantial definition, is comprised of a soul, a spirit, and a body which together comprise a person. I introduce Man's ousia to contrast it with God's ousia.

 

God's ousia comprises of 3 persons which immediately is difficult to grasp because I am unaware of anything built of this creation's elements which has multiple persons, animals, vegetation, rock, or what have you. That is, in this creation being equals person across the board. These God persons are not separate manifestations of the same substance (like the faces of a cube) but are distinct and separate persons in whom is the fulness of the Godhead. The visual for this relationship is captured in the Trinity Shield (+15 against possession):

 

 

I don't know if the adherents' understandings of the creeds include will and doctrine in the Substance of God (which, if they do makes your other points valid). But statements like "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father (after the resurrection)" only work against modalism, which is considered heresy by most Trinitarians.

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Regarding the Bible and prophets:

 

maybe when in 300 years they find spiderman and batman books they will think those were real and they were gods..or maybe we should start worshiping thor and zeus again cause their stories were written too.

 

RESPONSE

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. ~ Richard Feynman (wiki)

When we try to match the calculations (of quantum mechanics) with observation, "the answer we get is is off by  1x120 zeros.  In fact it is the biggest mismatch between theory and observation in the history of science. That is the state of our science today....  **I think that means that we are driving blind."**
Neil deGrasse Tyson
"The Inexplicable Universe" episode 5, minute 21

(this is on Netflix)

Should we believe in the world of quantum mechanics, or is this just a figment of our imagination, like the Easter Bunny?  

Edited September 22, 2015 by cdowis

[Vort]

Your quote is reasonable and apropos, but Neil deGrasse Tyson is a liar who has been repeatedly caught in his lies and is pretty much unabashed about them. I would try to avoid quoting him for any reason.

[cdowis]

Are you talking about his knowledge and statements on science, or comments on political and social issues.

 

If the former, a few examples (links) of documented misstatements would be appreciated.  I don't care about the latter.

Edited September 10, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

>> My understanding of substance or ousia (from my readings of Plato) is that it is the ideal of the thing.

 

I translate this as "template".  That is why the question of the chicken and the egg is--- they are both co-eternal.  There is no first chicken, no first egg.  Apples and the apple tree have always existed.  

 

They have both existed infinitely, and this is an application of template.  IMO, homoousia has nothing to do with this.  Actually it has nothing to do with anything -->> it is a meaningless artificial construct.

 

I believe I mentioned John 17:19-23.  The LDS construct is something I call the Patrimony, coming from the "joint heirs" reference by Paul.  The entire estate is undivided (united, "one")  among the heirs, with each one have their own responsibility, with the Lord of the Manor (the Father) administrating it all.  (see, for example, Heb 1:1-2).

 

Thinking of a crude example,  Christ and the joint heirs are given the "Power of attorney", so to speak.

 

Thus, as Christ taught in John 17, there is "one god" in which we are all an integrated  part.  (Rev 3:21 is another example of this oneness).

 

(PS John 5: 19 is interesting.  We learn something very important about the Father.)

 

It's all right there in the Bible.  And the Prophet Joseph Smith pointed it out to us.

Edited September 11, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

show me proof that the hill cumorah existed as a battlefield and id believe you

 

RESPONSE

Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be opened to you."

Was he telling them to find out that He was the Christ through archaeology?

Edited September 11, 2015 by cdowis

[mordorbund]

 

>> My understanding of substance or ousia (from my readings of Plato) is that it is the ideal of the thing.

 

I translate this as "template".  That is why the question of the chicken and the egg is--- they are both co-eternal.  There is no first chicken, no first egg.  Apples and the apple tree have always existed.  

 

They have both existed infinitely, and this is an application of template.  IMO, homoousia has nothing to do with this.  Actually it has nothing to do with anything -->> it is a meaningless artificial construct.

 

I believe I mentioned John 17:19-23.  The LDS construct is something I call the Patrimony, coming from the "joint heirs" reference by Paul.  The entire estate is undivided (united, "one")  among the heirs, with each one have their own responsibility, with the Lord of the Manor (the Father) administrating it all.  (see, for example, Heb 1:1-2).

 

Thinking of a crude example,  Christ and the joint heirs are given the "Power of attorney", so to speak.

 

Thus, as Christ taught in John 17, there is "one god" in which we are all an integrated  part.  (Rev 3:21 is another example of this oneness).

 

(PS John 5: 19 is interesting.  We learn something very important about the Father.)

 

It's all right there in the Bible.  And the Prophet Joseph Smith pointed it out to us.

 

 

I'm not following how that answers my original question: 

 

Christ Himself refutes the "one substance entity" doctrine:
 --Not my will, but thine be done
--  Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father (after the resurrection)
--   The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
--   john 7 [16] Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

[17] If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

 

How does the bolded refute the Nicene Creed?

 

I provided my understanding of homoousia at your request. It may be an artificial construct, but it is not meaningless. It is a philosophical term intended to capture the resolution of a Christian paradox (how the Lord our God is one (as attested in scripture) while identifying 3 separate persons as God).

[cdowis]

Sorry that you did not like my answer, but it's all I got.  To me it's self-explanatory.

Anyway, as sometimes happens, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.  

Edited September 12, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

CRITIC

 

Various statements on whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet.

 

 

RESPONSE

 

Orson Pratt, 1811-1881

 DIVINE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON

By Orson Pratt

One of the Twelve Apostles of

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 

This book must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important messages ever sent from God to man, affecting both the temporal and eternal interests of every people under heaven to the same extent and in the same degree that the message of Noah affected the inhabitants of the old world. If false, it is one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions who will sincerely receive it as the word of God, and will suppose themselves securely built upon the rock of truth until they are plunged with their families into hopeless despair. The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such, that if true, no one can possibly be saved and reject it; if false, no one can possibly be saved and receive it. Therefore, every soul in all the world is equally interested in ascertaining its truth or falsity.

Edited September 12, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Questions and answers in the meeting with the Swedish members in 2010.  I have included only those questions which seemed to be problematic.

 

1. Can the LDS Church leaders be trusted?

 

You can rely on them to guide the church and to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  They are also free to express their own opinions, and may not have be able to give you the answers to your questions on such topics as church history.

 

2. Does the church believe in polygamy?

 

There are fundamental doctrines of the church that do not change, but the practice of those doctrines may change.  Let me give you and example, the Law of consecration.  In the early church, the members had "all things in common", but today we practice that law through tithing.

 

Today, a widow can be married and sealed to his second wife, but the practice of polygamy is not allowed for a man with multiple living wives.

 

3.Can you please try to convince us how this can be Christ-like, like Joseph Smith? To take the wives or have sex with wives that are already married to other men?

 

Let me explain an important distinction in the LDS concept of "marriage".  There is the temporal marriage with which we are all familiar, and that involves an intimate relationship between a man and a woman.

 

There is also a "spiritual or eternal marriage" or sealing for eternity.  In this case, someone can be your "spiritual wife" only after this life, and eternity only.  Sometimes they were referred to as "sister=wife", a sister relationship in this life, and then a wife after mortality.

 

But, again, the church does not practice this distinction today.  It was a practice ONLY n the early days of church history, and you cannot have a "spirit only wife" sealed to you today.

 

The history of these associations were not carefully kept, but we can safely assume that those married women were sister-wives to the Prophet.  There is now evidence, including a DNA research study, which indicates that he had intimate relations with these individuals.

Edited September 14, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Christopher Hitchens, in Memoriam

 

"I think, I assert, therefore I know."

 

Newton was heavily into alchemy. Does that then disqualify him as a contributor to science. According to the Hitchen's logic and philosophy as he assaults Mormonism, "This guy thought he could transform lead into gold, and spent enormous time trying to prove it. We can laugh at him, he was a con man, so don't take Newton seriously."

 

Hitchens was seriously flawed in his logical processes and his view of reality. Basically, "I think, I assert, therefore I am right" People took Hitchens seriously because he was so clever in his words, using rhetorical fireworks, in his absolute certitude that he could courageously tell us the truth.

 

Finally, his anti god philosophy was very appealing to those who saw it as giving them a sense of freedom --> that the ultimate judge of morality and personal behaviour was themselves.

 

All of this was exemplified in his treatment of Mormonism.  He had only a shallow understanding of its beliefs, bordering on ignorance.  He took shortcuts, assuming that we were "just another cult" and not worthy of serious consideration.  Joseph Smith was a con man, and could easily be dismissed with little study of his history.

 

The Book of Mormon?  Just "another Bible", a book delivered by an angel.  No need to look any further.

Edited September 15, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

A response to Hitchen's lecture, 

The Indifference of Heaven

 

The typical argument, "If I were God, this is how I would have done things." He is reveling in his ignorance of our relationship between God and ourselves. "I don't understand, therefore it is absurd."

 

He admits, with pride, that he does not understand the Atonement, how the sacrifice of the Son of God made it possible to return to God's presence. "How can anybody believe", is merely a reflection of his own concept of God, and , OF COURSE, it is an absurd description based on his ignorance.

 

This may give us, at the very least, a hint of God's plan for us here on earth. https://youtu.be/9MiF_HKoFr4?list=FLOGthnff2vitBgcB66Ngm1A

[Blackmarch]

A real danger of dealing with anti mormons is hate and anger. They go from being your brother to being your enemy, and then it is that much more difficult to have the spirit.

Thank you for the links by the way

Im still waiting for one ex mormon who had some great defenses of the book of mormon and scriptures to show how he was wrong. He hasnt yet.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Blackmarch

[hagoth]

I actually think most people should NOT go into apologetics....

Agreed. Apologetics often centers around defending the faith, rather than meeting the needs of the individual. What we need more of is seeking to understand people's genuine concerns. I say that, not out of criticism, but because it is something I genuinely need to be continually reminded of.

 

The former is generally a combative and defensive stance. The latter, not so much.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gELtwsJlTg8

Edited September 15, 2015 by hagoth

[cdowis]

CRITIC

Joseph Smith was in Carthage jail for treason

 

RESPONSE

FACT CHECK -- He was arrested for the Nauvoo Expositor incident. He then posted bail, but before being released, the indictment was changed to treason because bail was not allowed on a charge of treason.

 

Clearly the Nauvoo Expositor destruction had nothing to do with treason. It was used only to keep him in jail long enough for the mob to do their work.

Edited September 22, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

 Apologetics often centers around defending the faith, rather than meeting the needs of the individual.

 

 My purpose is not to do missionary work, or meet the needs of the antiMormons but to respond to their assertions.  For me, apologetics is a hobby like chess or softball.  I guess you could call it "golf + football."

 

But I do usually refer them to the missionaries on mormon.org or various videos which explain our beliefs.

Edited September 22, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Some issues are still very difficult to handle, e.g. the translation of the Book of Abraham.

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2015 by cdowis

[Guest MormonGator]

Your quote is reasonable and apropos, but Neil deGrasse Tyson is a liar who has been repeatedly caught in his lies and is pretty much unabashed about them. I would try to avoid quoting him for any reason.

  Vort could not be more right about this. Tyson has serious credibility issues. Your better off quoting a drunk.  

[cdowis]

  Vort could not be more right about this. Tyson has serious credibility issues. Your better off quoting a drunk.  

 

 

 

I ran across this

He is a loyal leftist, mocking the right and conservatives every chance he gets. The overriding theme of pompous acts like Tyson’s can be distilled down to this: folks on the right and especially the religious, are dimwits. It is a signature insult the left enthusiastically employs.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sagan built up his image by whacking away at strawmen in book after book. Tyson appears to be doing the same thing, finding targets for cheap shots that make him look good, even if the targets are invented.

As Sean Davis has shown us, a closer look at Neil deGrasse Tyson reveals he's nothing more than the guy who comes home with a thousand stories about all the witty things he said and all the people he beat up. In his imagination.

Tyson is a really successful version of that guy who has convinced a horde of idiots to worship him as the coolest man who ever lived.

 

Perhaps you are right, but he does not appear to have an agenda in this video  -- creationism, etc.  No one has complained about his statements.

Edited September 23, 2015 by cdowis