A Different God?


Steve Noel
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
17 minutes ago, beefche said:

. He is very concerned for my life as he believes that Mormons are evil and worship a different Jesus and doesn't believe that Jesus is God. I truly, honestly don't know why he believes that.

I've gotten the same thing from Catholic family members. Which is sad, because I've defended their faith from false claims-yet some still believe every anti-LDS thing out there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

I posted this on another discussion board and thought I would get thoughts here as well. I just read LDS scholar Stephen E. Robinson's "Introduction" in the book How Wide the Divide? (co-authored w/ Evangelical scholar Craig Blomberg). I am very impressed and, in all honesty, convicted by some of what Robinson writes about how Evangelicals have engaged the LDS community. That being said, I find the difference of perspective concerning the nature of God between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to be so significant that it is difficult to see how we can be talking about the same God. Robinson states, "We believe that God and humans are the same species of being..." (18). I cannot think of a more significant difference between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. For here the most basic of distinctions, the Creator - creature distinction, is erased. Blomberg calls this "the heart of traditional Christianity's disagreement with Mormonism" (96). For a point of comparison here is a representative Evangelical statement from respected Baptist theologian Millard J. Erickson. In his systematic theology book he makes a brief biblical case for the transcendence of God.*** He concludes that this is taught "throughout the Bible" (Christian Theology, 3rd ed., 283). A little later he lists some of the implications of this doctrine of transcendence. Here is the fourth implication Erickson lists,

"There will always be a difference between God and humans. The gap between us is not merely a moral and spiritual disparity that originated with the fall. It is metaphysical, stemming from creation. Even when redeemed and glorified, we will still be renewed human beings. We will never become God. He will always be God and we will always be humans, so that there will always be a divine transcendence. Salvation consists in God's restoring us to what he intended us to be, not elevating us to what he is" (289).

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

NOTE: This post is not intended as a debate/argument over which view is correct. That is a worthwhile discussion, but that is not what I'm after here. I will not be arguing for or against your viewpoint.

 

***Erickson explains what he means by transcendence when he writes, "By this we mean that God is separate from and independent of nature and humanity" (282).

We believe in the same God, even if the divide is wide. The divide could be narrow, and yet we would still believe in the same God. There is only one God that we worship. Hindus the divide is wide, yet we believe in the same God. Muslims, the divide is wide, yet we also believe in the same God. Buddhist, the divide is wide, yet we believe in the same God.

Now, if an individual is specifying any difference of interpretation of the same God is a different God, then we indeed do believe in a different God. I, however, am not one that anymore defines this as such. 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Steve Noel said:

In another forum I asked this question and an Evangelical named Daniel Woods described really well why the Creator - creature gap is significant to us. He wrote:

"For the Evangelical the divide is infinite. The difference between an infinite being (of which there is only one) and a finite being, is an infinite difference."

I include that just for clarification. I do not want to argue the pros and cons of each view at this time. How would you respond to the question I asked in the OP?

And that further illustrates the difference. Because we are the same species, we are also infinite beings. We have an infinite past and will have an infinite future. We believe in a pre-existence and that we will live on after death. We are infinite beings who are currently living in a finite state for experience and testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

We believe in the same God, even if the divide is wide. The divide could be narrow, and yet we would still believe in the same God. There is only one God that we worship. Hindus the divide is wide, yet we believe in the same God. Muslims, the divide is wide, yet we also believe in the same God. Buddhist, the divide is wide, yet we believe in the same God.

Now, if an individual is specifying any difference of interpretation of the same God is a different God, then we indeed do believe in a different God. I, however, am not one that anymore defines this as such. 

I have seen several responses like this in another LDS forum where I asked this question. The reasoning seems to be that since there is only one God, whatever someone calls God must be that same God. In the other forum someone stated that if a person worships a cow or a stick and calls that God, then it is the same God, because there is only one God. What I think is being missed is the reality that there are "so-called gods" (1 Cor. 8:5). That is, some worship, pray to, and believe in gods that do not exist in reality. These gods are not the true God but are false gods. The Ephesians worshiped many different gods in the 1st century. Yet when Paul came to Ephesus he proclaimed that "gods made with hands are no gods at all" (Acts 19:26). So, for the apostle Paul, every being that was called God was not God.

Let me illustrate: If you say that the President of the United States is a 6'1'' married African-American man with graying hair, and I say that he is a 5'4'' single Caucasian man with blonde hair, are we describing the same man? There is only one man who is the President of the United States. In this illustration, my description of the President does not correspond to reality, therefore, my "President" does not exist. A President exists, but the person I described was not him. 

That is similar to how I see this question about God.

Edited by Steve Noel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Let me illustrate: If you say that the President of the United States is a 6'1'' married African-American man with graying hair, and I say that he is a 5'4'' single Caucasian man with blonde hair, are we describing the same man? There is only one man who is the President of the United States. In this illustration, my description of the President does not correspond to reality, therefore, my "President" does not exist. A President exists, but the person I described was not him. 

The fact that you have a very poor knowledge about the President doesn't change the fact that there is still only one President.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, we worship the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament. We worship the Son and also the Father whom the Son revealed. If you want to maintain that you worship a different god, that's fine, I won't object. But what I do object to is someone instructing me who I do not worship. So to those who claim I worship " A Different Jesus®", I say, "Okay. I worship the Biblical Jesus, so I guess you must worship Someone Else®."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve Noel said:

I have seen several responses like this in another LDS forum where I asked this question. The reasoning seems to be that since there is only one God, whatever someone calls God must be that same God. In the other forum someone stated that if a person worships a cow or a stick and calls that God, then it is the same God, because there is only one God. What I think is being missed is the reality that there are "so-called gods" (1 Cor. 8:5). That is, some worship, pray to, and believe in gods that do not exist in reality. These gods are not the true God but are false gods. The Ephesians worshiped many different gods in the 1st century. Yet when Paul came to Ephesus he proclaimed that "gods made with hands are no gods at all" (Acts 19:26). So, for the apostle Paul, every being that was called God was not God.

Let me illustrate: If you say that the President of the United States is a 6'1'' married African-American man with graying hair, and I say that he is a 5'4'' single Caucasian man with blonde hair, are we describing the same man? There is only one man who is the President of the United States. In this illustration, my description of the President does not correspond to reality, therefore, my "President" does not exist. A President exists, but the person I described was not him. 

I have a question for you: 

Your profile lists you as an Evangelical.  Do you believe that a person becomes a Christian when they confess their sins and acknowledge Christ as their Lord and Savior?  If so, when a person comes to you after just having such an experience, do you--

A) Welcome them as a brother in Christ and celebrate with them?

B) Or stop them mid-story, interrogate them about their metaphysical views about God, and if they fail to sufficiently match yours, you then tell them that they are not a Christian and just gave their life over to a false god?

C) Or do you __[ fill in the blank ___ ]?

 

Personally I go with option A.  

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the course that my God and I are following, one of the many determinants of our current relative positions is starting time. God started this course before me so He has therefore progressed further than me but we are on the same road. I believe that in pursuit of the course that He and I are now on, there is nothing that He has done that many living now will also do t some point in the far distant future (where time might not have a meaning). Although there are major differences between my God and myself, I believe that with time, faith, and works on my part, and grace on God's part, the number and significance of these differences will change, although some differences will certainly remain.

As to whether or not we worship the same or different Gods, I believe that there are a lot of strong and overlapping similarities in our concept of God as many other posts have pointed out. However, I worship a being of tangible flesh and bone whereas I believe that many protestants worship some kind of immaterial amorphous being. It seems to me that the difference between an immaterial amorphous being without body, parts of passion, and a loving, physical being with flesh and bone casts some doubt on whether we worship the same God. The concepts are very similar but the physical reality is totally different. There were also a great many similarities in the concepts of Baal and Jehovah, but Baal quite often dwelt in the work of man’s hand and had a very physical reality from Jehovah.  Worship of one certainly did not count as worship of the other.     

Edited by askandanswer
duplicated post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I have seen several responses like this in another LDS forum where I asked this question. The reasoning seems to be that since there is only one God, whatever someone calls God must be that same God. In the other forum someone stated that if a person worships a cow or a stick and calls that God, then it is the same God, because there is only one God. What I think is being missed is the reality that there are "so-called gods" (1 Cor. 8:5). That is, some worship, pray to, and believe in gods that do not exist in reality. These gods are not the true God but are false gods. The Ephesians worshiped many different gods in the 1st century. Yet when Paul came to Ephesus he proclaimed that "gods made with hands are no gods at all" (Acts 19:26). So, for the apostle Paul, every being that was called God was not God.

Let me illustrate: If you say that the President of the United States is a 6'1'' married African-American man with graying hair, and I say that he is a 5'4'' single Caucasian man with blonde hair, are we describing the same man? There is only one man who is the President of the United States. In this illustration, my description of the President does not correspond to reality, therefore, my "President" does not exist. A President exists, but the person I described was not him. 

That is similar to how I see this question about God.

Reality being missed, or simply building upon a common belief? Yes, there are "so-called gods." Joshua declared as for him and his house he would serve the Lord (Joshua 24:15). After inviting a person to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ (a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim), should they refuse, my sentiments would be the same. I will serve the Lord.

When a Muslim prays and their prayer is answered, who answered their prayer? A false God or the true and living God? Of course, if the prayer was answered it could have only been answered by God, the true and living God, assuming the prayer was "good", for all things which are "good" come from the true and living God (Moroni 7:13, 3 John 1:11). A Buddhist that worships and through their manner of worship feels God speak to him/her and the intention was to serve their neighbor, who inspired them to serve their neighbor -- a good thing? God, the true and living God.

The Book of Mormon presents a wonderful lesson regarding building upon this common belief (Alma 18:24-30). In short, a King, by the name of Lamoni, believed in a Great Spirit, as one could easily define as a "false God," and was asked the question "Do you believe in God" (the true God)? His response was that he believed in a Great Spirit, by which Ammon, a servant of God, replied "This is God." This lead into other questions which allowed Ammon to teach Lamoni about the true and living God.  My mission experience taught me that when speaking with people of different faiths, different beliefs, different doctrines, to build upon what we both believe and then teach correct doctrines and principles pertaining to the true and living God.

This I know for sure, when a Christian prays, when a Muslim prays, when a Buddhist prayer, or when anyone of a different faith prays (meditates) and they are inspired by good and virtuous principles and to serve and do good to their fellow neighbors, that inspiration only comes from the true and living God, even if they believe in what one might say is a "false god," because a false God does not answer prayers.  

And as in the Bible sometimes, a false belief in the true and living God, needs to be outright confronted -- Elijah and the priests of Baal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve I think you're to be commended. Typically when a Catholic or Protestant Christian comes to these forums to discuss the differences in our beliefs in God they open with the Trinity. Then we go back and forth for 14 pages posting past each other, with both sides making statements that sound essentially the same while the original poster insists "but this is totally different than what you believe." Finally on the 15th page we get to the nature of God (is He really our Father or isn't He) and the nature of man (did we exist before birth or didn't we).

You've hit on it in the first page. So, congratulations!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

The fact that you have a very poor knowledge about the President doesn't change the fact that there is still only one President.  

I agree. Since we all have an incomplete knowledge of God we should be cautious here. That being said, I think the Scriptures I referenced do tell us that there is a line that can be crossed where we are no longer talking about the one true God

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I agree. Since we all have an incomplete knowledge of God we should be cautious here. That being said, I think the Scriptures I referenced do tell us that there is a line that can be crossed where we are no longer talking about the one true God

What would you say that line is?  A verse would be helpful.

(Bytheway, my previous comment was meant to be the generic "you", not Steve-- just wanted to make sure you know I wasn't insulting you or anything.  I actually think your behavior and knowledge here has been commendable.) 

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Steve, we worship the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New Testament. We worship the Son and also the Father whom the Son revealed. If you want to maintain that you worship a different god, that's fine, I won't object. But what I do object to is someone instructing me who I do not worship. So to those who claim I worship " A Different Jesus®", I say, "Okay. I worship the Biblical Jesus, so I guess you must worship Someone Else®."

Please note that I am not making an argument for the Evangelical perspective or against the Mormon perspective here. I am definitely not instructing you who you do not worship. I am just trying to bring more focus to my question in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Steve I think you're to be commended. Typically when a Catholic or Protestant Christian comes to these forums to discuss the differences in our beliefs in God they open with the Trinity. Then we go back and forth for 14 pages posting past each other, with both sides making statements that sound essentially the same while the original poster insists "but this is totally different than what you believe." Finally on the 15th page we get to the nature of God (is He really our Father or isn't He) and the nature of man (did we exist before birth or didn't we).

You've hit on it in the first page. So, congratulations!

He also hit the "How wide the divide" recommendation AND reading right in the OP!  We frequently recommend that book to people to help understanding.  It's a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I agree. Since we all have an incomplete knowledge of God we should be cautious here. That being said, I think the Scriptures I referenced do tell us that there is a line that can be crossed where we are no longer talking about the one true God

Conceptually, I agree with you.  I guess my perspective is--if you've got a soldier in the US army who follows orders and reads the President's speeches regularly--and loves the president for what those speeches reveal about him--then does it matter that the soldier gets some of the president's biographical details wrong, or isn't 100% clear on how the electoral college works?  Would anyone seriously suggest that such a soldier was "following a different commander-in-chief"?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

In the course that my God and I are following, one of the many determinants of our current relative positions is starting time. God started this course before me so He has therefore progressed further than me but we are on the same road. I believe that in pursuit of the course that He and I are now on, there is nothing that He has done that many living now will also do t some point in the far distant future (where time might not have a meaning). Although there are major differences between my God and myself, I believe that with time, faith, and works on my part, and grace on God's part, the number and significance of these differences will change, although some differences will certainly remain.

As to whether or not we worship the same or different Gods, I believe that there are a lot of strong and overlapping similarities in our concept of God as many other posts have pointed out. However, I worship a being of tangible flesh and bone whereas I believe that many protestants worship some kind of immaterial amorphous being. It seems to me that the difference between an immaterial amorphous being without body, parts of passion, and a loving, physical being with flesh and bone casts some doubt on whether we worship the same God. The concepts are very similar but the physical reality is totally different. There were also a great many similarities in the concepts of Baal and Jehovah, but Baal quite often dwelt in the work of man’s hand and had a very physical reality from Jehovah.  Worship of one certainly did not count as worship of the other.     

I appreciate your response. You are the first Latter-day Saint I have seen answer this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

I have a question for you: 

Your profile lists you as an Evangelical.  Do you believe that a person becomes a Christian when they confess their sins and acknowledge Christ as their Lord and Savior?  If so, when a person comes to you after just having such an experience, do you--

A) Welcome them as a brother in Christ and celebrate with them?

B) Or stop them mid-story, interrogate them about their metaphysical views about God, and if they fail to sufficiently match yours, you then tell them that they are not a Christian and just gave their life over to a false god?

C) Or do you __[ fill in the blank ___ ]?

 

Personally I go with option A.  

I would go with A as well. I knew virtually no theology when I was converted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

I would go with A as well. I knew virtually no theology when I was converted. 

If a certain level of understanding of theologic knowledge is not required to be a disciple of Christ, why would you say that someone who misunderstands some things about Him is worshipping a different God?

(Edited to make sense)

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Reality being missed, or simply building upon a common belief? Yes, there are "so-called gods." Joshua declared as for him and his house he would serve the Lord (Joshua 24:15). After inviting a person to accept the gospel of Jesus Christ (a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim), should they refuse, my sentiments would be the same. I will serve the Lord.

When a Muslim prays and their prayer is answered, who answered their prayer? A false God or the true and living God? Of course, if the prayer was answered it could have only been answered by God, the true and living God, assuming the prayer was "good", for all things which are "good" come from the true and living God (Moroni 7:13, 3 John 1:11). A Buddhist that worships and through their manner of worship feels God speak to him/her and the intention was to serve their neighbor, who inspired them to serve their neighbor -- a good thing? God, the true and living God.

The Book of Mormon presents a wonderful lesson regarding building upon this common belief (Alma 18:24-30). In short, a King, by the name of Lamoni, believed in a Great Spirit, as one could easily define as a "false God," and was asked the question "Do you believe in God" (the true God)? His response was that he believed in a Great Spirit, by which Ammon, a servant of God, replied "This is God." This lead into other questions which allowed Ammon to teach Lamoni about the true and living God.  My mission experience taught me that when speaking with people of different faiths, different beliefs, different doctrines, to build upon what we both believe and then teach correct doctrines and principles pertaining to the true and living God.

This I know for sure, when a Christian prays, when a Muslim prays, when a Buddhist prayer, or when anyone of a different faith prays (meditates) and they are inspired by good and virtuous principles and to serve and do good to their fellow neighbors, that inspiration only comes from the true and living God, even if they believe in what one might say is a "false god," because a false God does not answer prayers.  

And as in the Bible sometimes, a false belief in the true and living God, needs to be outright confronted -- Elijah and the priests of Baal.

 

I think what you say here is valid. When Paul was in Athens (Acts 17:16-33) he looked at all their idols (false gods) and used one (an "unknown god") to preach the gospel of the true God. In this message he also called them to repent of their false views of God (vv. 29-30).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Steve I think you're to be commended. Typically when a Catholic or Protestant Christian comes to these forums to discuss the differences in our beliefs in God they open with the Trinity. Then we go back and forth for 14 pages posting past each other, with both sides making statements that sound essentially the same while the original poster insists "but this is totally different than what you believe." Finally on the 15th page we get to the nature of God (is He really our Father or isn't He) and the nature of man (did we exist before birth or didn't we).

You've hit on it in the first page. So, congratulations!

Thank you for the encouragement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

What would you say that line is?  A verse would be helpful.

(Bytheway, my previous comment was meant to be the generic "you", not Steve-- just wanted to make sure you know I wasn't insulting you or anything.  I actually think your behavior and knowledge here has been commendable.) 

I really don't know the answer to that question. It would be a good one to search the Scriptures on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

If a certain level of understanding of theologic knowledge is not required to be a disciple of Christ, why would you say that someone who misunderstands some things about Him is worshipping a different God?

(Edited to make sense)

I would not say that someone who misunderstands some things is worshiping another God. I do not seek to major on the minors. That being said, if you look at the 3 Scriptures I have referenced (1 Cor. 8:5; Acts 17:16-33; Acts 19:26) you will see that there is biblical precedent for what I am saying here. I do not have all the answers. I am just trying to say what Scripture says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Conceptually, I agree with you.  I guess my perspective is--if you've got a soldier in the US army who follows orders and reads the President's speeches regularly--and loves the president for what those speeches reveal about him--then does it matter that the soldier gets some of the president's biographical details wrong, or isn't 100% clear on how the electoral college works?  Would anyone seriously suggest that such a soldier was "following a different commander-in-chief"?

Many of these examples I would agree with. What really prompted my deeper inquiry here was the inclusion of Hinduism and Buddhism. These religions do not believe in a personal God at all. This is not a slight misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Steve Noel said:

Many of these examples I would agree with. What really prompted my deeper inquiry here was the inclusion of Hinduism and Buddhism. These religions do not believe in a personal God at all. This is not a slight misunderstanding.

Buddhist believe in becoming the perfect human being, or what they define as developing into a "Buddha." We believe through God we become perfected, a perfect human being. Building again on similar beliefs. Major or minor misunderstanding, as with King Lamoni, build from a common belief, or a common truth that is taught through the true and living God, once established, then other truths can be taught. Their notion of "Buddha" is discovered here in Doctrine and Covenants 84: 33-38. So to clarify, my bringing up Buddhism and Hinduism was in reference to God (or false god) and religion (personal belief or false religion). I assume I could have clarified a bit more.

Hindus believe in a Supreme being, which is the creator, and that they can communicate with God and the Gods. We would again, build a common belief as we both believe in a Supreme being who is creator. There is only one Supreme being, Creator, and this is the true and living God. Whether one calls him a "Great Spirit", Allah, or something else. 

As there are major and minor misunderstandings, there is only one path to know truth (it isn't the Bible), and that is through spiritual manifestation from the Father, through his Holy Spirit. When Jesus asked what others had said who he was, and asked who they thought he was, Peter specified he was Jesus the son of the living God, by which Jesus blessed Peter saying the Father had revealed it to him. It wasn't the Torah. It wasn't the Book of Law. It wasn't the commandments. It wasn't what others said. It wasn't the Bible (as the Bible did not exist then), or if someone says, "I am just trying to say what the Scripture says." Although these are good, and with good intentions, It was revealed by the Father.

As an exemplum regarding "I am just trying to say what the Scriptures says," I had a companion on my mission who thoroughly tried to convince me that in the last days the servants of the Lord mentioned in Revelations will actually (physically) breath fire out of their mouths (Revelations 11:5). I tried to specify that this was more symbolic, but he rebutted with, "It is in scriptures, black and white." I didn't see anything further to discuss as how does one argue against "black and white" printed scripture :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 2, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Steve Noel said:

I posted this on another discussion board and thought I would get thoughts here as well. I just read LDS scholar Stephen E. Robinson's "Introduction" in the book How Wide the Divide? (co-authored w/ Evangelical scholar Craig Blomberg). I am very impressed and, in all honesty, convicted by some of what Robinson writes about how Evangelicals have engaged the LDS community. That being said, I find the difference of perspective concerning the nature of God between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to be so significant that it is difficult to see how we can be talking about the same God. Robinson states, "We believe that God and humans are the same species of being..." (18). I cannot think of a more significant difference between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. For here the most basic of distinctions, the Creator - creature distinction, is erased. Blomberg calls this "the heart of traditional Christianity's disagreement with Mormonism" (96). For a point of comparison here is a representative Evangelical statement from respected Baptist theologian Millard J. Erickson. In his systematic theology book he makes a brief biblical case for the transcendence of God.*** He concludes that this is taught "throughout the Bible" (Christian Theology, 3rd ed., 283). A little later he lists some of the implications of this doctrine of transcendence. Here is the fourth implication Erickson lists,

"There will always be a difference between God and humans. The gap between us is not merely a moral and spiritual disparity that originated with the fall. It is metaphysical, stemming from creation. Even when redeemed and glorified, we will still be renewed human beings. We will never become God. He will always be God and we will always be humans, so that there will always be a divine transcendence. Salvation consists in God's restoring us to what he intended us to be, not elevating us to what he is" (289).

Given that this divide is very wide, would you say that Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints believe in, worship, pray to, etc. the same God?

NOTE: This post is not intended as a debate/argument over which view is correct. That is a worthwhile discussion, but that is not what I'm after here. I will not be arguing for or against your viewpoint.

 

***Erickson explains what he means by transcendence when he writes, "By this we mean that God is separate from and independent of nature and humanity" (282).

Depends how you approach your reasoning. In the end we seek Christ, to bring us to be one with him and the father. Different cultures describe the sky differently.

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