Not believing in the traditional Christ


Jonah
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, person0 said:

How is that to produce interesting answers?  

Interesting because that alone would exclude us from being monothesitic and would blur the line of henotheism as well.

So, we'll see what answers others have as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Calvinists might give you a theological hug with this one. They would agree and promote Predestination as the only doctrine that comports with God's sovereignty. I would suggest that only an all-powerful God would grant his creation the liberty to commune with Him or embrace eternal separation.

I am of the mind that often as mankind attempts to discuss divine things - their ignorance shows.  In addition, logic is a two edged sword.  For example, if we say that G-d is all powerful - the logic of that statement is definitive.  Any exception to a definitive statement proves the statement false.  In the case of an ALL powerful G-d if there is any power vested anywhere else - then G-d is not ALL powerful.   The Calvinists are correct - if G-d is all powerful then predestination is the only logical possibility.   Your suggestion that only a all-powerful G-d can grant liberty to embrace or reject Him is a self contradictory argument.  It is like the all-powerful being creating a rock they cannot lift.  The assumption contradicts the conclusion creating both a false paradigm as well as false logic.  This means that either one or the other or both are false.

The entire conundrum can be solved by modifying the premise to G-d being the most powerful.  But religious thinkers do not like that idea - but logic demands it.  Just a word in passing - all knowing is slightly different than all powerful.  It is because many can possess the exact same knowledge.  This is like the logical construct in quantum physics and the difference between fermions and bosons.   Fermions cannot occupy the same space at the same time but bosons can.  If a person cannot understand the logical difference and therefore thinking of the two in terms that they are familiar with - then both their assumptions and conclusions will be flawed.  

The problem you and I are looking at (G-d being all powerful) may seem to have certain elements.  For example, we may think that in order for G-d to be able to all thing necessary he must have all power - but that is not logical - he only need the power to do all things necessary.  There are just too many logical problems with the logic of G-d being all powerful.  I am comfortable with the logic and reason that G-d is in full possession of all necessary power needed to do all good, just and right things - which I believe is possible of others also have power to do good, just and right things of themselves - which would be good just and right.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am of the mind that often as mankind attempts to discuss divine things - their ignorance shows.  In addition, logic is a two edged sword.  For example, if we say that G-d is all powerful - the logic of that statement is definitive.  Any exception to a definitive statement proves the statement false. 

I agree and God is certainly not all-powerful as per our religion.

All powerful implies that a person, organization, or god can do anything he, she, or they want.   Our religion preaches against this and says that if God sins than he will cease to be God.   This the opposite of the definition of all-powerful.

See here for definitions of all-powerful and also for all-powerful used in sentences:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/all-powerful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, person0 said:

As much as I am opposed to the Nicene Creed, I don't think the answer to that question necessarily subverts it.  All powerful (Omnipotent) is the power to do anything that is possible to be done.  Truly and fully removing an individual's agency is not within the realm of possible things.  A Creedal Trinitarian may not accept that definition of omnipotence, and so they may still fail to be capable of adequately addressing such a question.

On a similar note: In a different thread, months back, we already addressed that creation ex-nihilo necessarily implies the absence of agency/free-will for God's creations.  Obviously, most believers of creation ex-nihilo (other than Calvinists and the like) would reject this premise, but to me, it is basic logic.

Lets consider together your statement - "All powerful (Omnipotent) is the power to do anything that is possible to be done."  I would ask the question - Who has the power to determine who I love?  Do I have that power or does G-d?  By your definition; that power is exclusive with G-d because it is possible.  I do not believe you concept is viable or correct - However, I do not think you are so far from what is - that you have power in yourself - that G-d does not have - that allows you to comprehend and to act independent of the power G-d possesses. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

I don't think I'd agree.  

The definition of monotheism is the believe that there is only one god.

Even Paul conceded there were "gods many". There are any number of false gods. But for us, there is only one true God. Worship of any other being or non-being besides him is worshiping a false god. So we are monotheistic in any reasonable definition of the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

So we are monotheistic in any reasonable definition of the word.

Which definition?   Can you show me one definition of monotheism that matches our beliefs?

Quote

But for us, there is only one true God.

That's the definition of henotheistic.  Henotheism is the belief that there is one God to be worshipped without denying the existence of other deities.

Also is Heavenly Mother a goddess?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Scott said:

I agree and God is certainly not all-powerful as per our religion.

Wow. I don't even know what to say to such an assertion from a self-proclaimed Latter-day Saint.

43 minutes ago, Scott said:

All powerful implies that a person, organization, or god can do anything he, she, or they want.   Our religion preaches against this and says that if God sins than he will cease to be God.   This the opposite of the definition of all-powerful.

It implies no such thing. God is indeed all-powerful. He possesses all power. Period. There can be no argument over this.

The things that God "cannot" do are not things. They are non-things. God "cannot" create a rock so big that he can't lift it. God "cannot" save people in their sins. God "cannot" make you exist at a certain place and time, and simultaneously make you not exist at that place and time. God "cannot" do these "things", not because he lacks the power to do them, but because the "things" aren't actually things at all. They are mere word games.

God "cannot" sin. Of course he "cannot". He doesn't lack some sort of "power" to sin (which is a contradiction in terms, anyway); rather, sinful behavior is contrary to his nature. It's another word game.

I think it's too bad when non-Latter-day Saints falsely preach that we believe in a non-Almighty God. I think it's much sadder when Latter-day Saints fail to understand this basic point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

Which definition?   Can you show me one definition of monotheism that matches our beliefs?

"the doctrine or belief that there is only one God."

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

That's the definition of henotheistic.  Henotheism is the belief that there is one God to be worshipped without denying the existence of other deities.

So you contend that Paul was "henotheistic". I doubt almost any other Christian, LDS or otherwise, would agree with you.

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

Also is Heavenly Mother a goddess?

And that has...what to do, exactly, with the present discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

OK, I have a question which could produce some interesting answers.

Is Heavenly Mother a god (or goddess)?   

This is a language conundrum.  The English word 'G-d' is in reality gender-less but by grammatic  construct the male gender is assumed.  But G-ddess is by grammatical rule; female.  All of which is twisted into utter nonsense in the current climate of gender confusion.  There is another problem - under the Near Mid Eastern Suzerain definition of a "Kingdom" the concept of "Father" is used for the Suzerain - even if the Suzerain is female.  It is similar to the male gender use of "sir" in the military when addressing a commissioned officer - even if the officer is female.  But outside the military - one should address females as mam and not sir.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

Even Paul conceded there were "gods many". There are any number of false gods. 

Our religion believes that other (non-false) gods exist, but there is only one God that we worship.   We also believe that mankind is a God in embreyo.    This is not monotheism.    This is a form of henotheism.  

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Who has the power to determine who I love?  Do I have that power or does G-d?  By your definition; that power is exclusive with G-d because it is possible.

I think you may be confused about the implications of my definition of omnipotence.  Your example makes no sense to me in connection with my definition.  How does my definition imply that God is the exclusive possessor of [x] power?

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

It implies no such thing.

It does.   By definition.

Quote

God is indeed all-powerful.

We believe that God is greater than all-powerful.   If God sins He will cease to be God.  Yet God chooses (He still has a choice) not to sin.   This is much greater than all powerful.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

Paul was referring to false gods.

You are assuming Paul was referring exclusively to false Gods.  I disagree; he was referring to both false (nonexistent) as well as existing beings who are not our One True God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, person0 said:

You are assuming Paul was referring exclusively to false Gods.  I disagree; he was referring to both false (nonexistent) as well as existing beings who are not our One True God.

OK, but if those other existing beings are gods, then that would make us henonistic.  I can edit my post to reflect this.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone who says that we are monotheistic, here are my simple questions.

1.    Do you believe that other gods exist, even if it isn't the God we worship?

2.    Do you believe that Heavenly mother is a Goddess?

3.    Do you believe that mankind is a God in embreyo, as taught by many of our Church leaders?

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Scott said:

OK, but if those other existing beings are gods, then that would make us henonistic

Who cares what label someone wants to assign us?  I care only that we are the True Church teaching the True Gospel of Jesus Christ, which can be confirmed by the power of the Holy Ghost.  That's good enough for me.  Labels, like 'monotheistic', will only exist for as long as we speak our finite mortal languages.

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, person0 said:

I care only that we are the True Church teaching the True Gospel of Jesus Christ, which can be confirmed by the power of the Holy Ghost.  That's good enough for me. 

Thank you.  That's a really good answer and very straightforward and honest.  

Quote

Labels, like 'monotheistic', will only exist for as long as we speak our finite mortal languages.

Yes.

Our church teach that there is only one God that we worship, but that others exist.   

Ours is a unique believe among other Christian religions or sects.

We don't really fit in the mold of what is usually thought of as monotheism or polytheism.   Henothesim is probably the closest (man-made) definition we fit into, but even then we are unique.   We can't really claim to be monotheists; we are different and we are what we are.  We shouldn't be shy about our beliefs or to try and cram them into a mold that doesn't fit.

 

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

For anyone who says that we are monotheistic, here are my simple questions.

1.    Do you believe that other gods exist, even if it isn't the God we worship?

There are false gods and there's the one true God.

 

Quote

2.    Do you believe that Heavenly mother is a Goddess?'

Irrelevant.

 

Quote

3.    Do you believe that mankind is a God in embreyo, as taught by many of our Church leaders?

Not in the way you use the word embryo.  The problem with your questions and your positing of henotheism is you confuse God with Persons in the Godhead.

So let me post the last sentence to the Testimony of Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon:

And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Apparently, the prophets care. They have made it crystal clear that we believe in and worship one God.

Yes, of course, but while you and I will claim that we worship one God and are monotheistic, other's will label us as something else, and I really don't care what they think as long as I know by the power of the Holy Ghost that our doctrines are true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scott said:

Interesting because that alone would exclude us from being monothesitic and would blur the line of henotheism as well.

So, we'll see what answers others have as well.

Blurring lines.  What would you categorize Buddhism as?  Monotheistic?  Or poly or heno?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Apparently, the prophets care. They have made it crystal clear that we believe in and worship one God.

Indeed God is ONE.  And that is were Henotheism and Polytheism fail. 

With all other Theisms other then Mono if you do not like what one God tells you then go ask another and you might get a different answer. (See many Greek and Roman myths ) With Monotheism that is not an option because they are ONE. 

Christianity is not Henotheistic or Polytheistic because you can not Play the Father against the Son (like in many mythologies), because the Father and Son are ONE.  This makes the Heavenly Mother also a moot point because she is also One with the Father and Son... it makes anyone else that might ascend also a moot point because they will also be ONE.   The number of physical forms running around (or personalities) is not relevant because they are all ONE with what makes God... God.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

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