Not believing in the traditional Christ


Jonah
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, zil said:

Maybe I missed it, I haven't really been reading everything, but the thing I haven't seen is this:

Henotheism (if I understand correctly) is a belief that there are multiple gods who are all worship-able, but I'm just going to worship this one that I prefer.

Monotheism says there is only one worship-able God.

And that is why we are monotheists and not henotheists.  ...

That does explain the LDS idea. However, those definitions are tailored pretty significantly. Henotheism is the belief that there are gods, but only one gets worshiped. Monotheism means there is only one God, period. This is why Muslims and Jews question whether Trinitarian worship is monotheism. 3 cannot be one. We insist it is. LDS push it further by saying the 3 can be both separate beings and still be one capital-G God. Then there is the matter of exaltation, not to mention eternal progression, or even pre-mortal existence (wouldn't an eternal intelligence be deity?). For monotheists, if one believes there are other gods, worshipable or not, then that person is not a monotheist. We Trinitarians believe we qualify--stridently so. This is why even 'social Trinitarians' are considered heretical by most traditionalists.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, person0 said:

Okay, whatever.

_______________________________________________________________________

Why can't we all just admit and acknowledge the fact that there is one God, that we worship the One True God, but that the intricacies of exaltation and our capacity to become a god, like God our Father is complicated?

_______________________________________________________________________

Given the absence of a response to my lengthier post above, for now, I will assume a silent (perhaps grudging) acknowledgement of its accuracy and veracity.

Of course everything is complicated.

In the same manner that the thief on the cross with Christ is in paradise so is all of God's creation in the Plan of Salvation await the turning of this eternal round in paradise to inherit their kingdoms including those promised exaltation.  THE WORK IS NOT FINISHED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, person0 said:

Why can't we all just admit and acknowledge the fact that there is one God, that we worship the One True God, but that the intricacies of exaltation and our capacity to become a god, like God our Father is complicated?

I think everyone here admits that, person0. The specific point under discussion is whether the word "monotheism" or the word "henotheism" better describes the doctrine of the Restored Gospel. Some insist that "henotheism" is somehow more accurate, but many (most?) insist that that is false, and that "monotheism" is the only term of the two that reasonably described LDS beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

That does explain the LDS idea. However, those definitions are tailored pretty significantly. Henotheism is the belief that there are gods, but only one gets worshiped. Monotheism means there is only one God, period. This is why Muslims and Jews question whether Trinitarian worship is monotheism. 3 cannot be one. We insist it is. LDS push it further by saying the 3 can be both separate beings and still be one capital-G God. Then there is the matter of exaltation, not to mention eternal progression. For monotheists, if one believes there are other gods, worshipable or not, then that person is not a monotheist. We Trinitarians believe we qualify--stridently so. This is why even 'social Trinitarians' are considered heretical by most traditionalists.

It comes down to how you define ONE.

Jews, Muslims and other non Christians... Look at Christian's 3 in 1 and say nope that is not One God that is Three Gods. And declare that Christians are not Monotheists.  Christians insist otherwise. 

Trinity of one substance Christians say that it is One God while pointing to the Trinity of Sociability Christians as worshiping Three Gods  and declare that they are not Monotheists. Trinity of sociability Christians insist otherwise.

Everyone insist that they have the logical, and/or divinely defined definition of ONE.  And we all disagree with the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

That does explain the LDS idea. However, those definitions are tailored pretty significantly. Henotheism is the belief that there are gods, but only one gets worshiped. Monotheism means there is only one God, period. This is why Muslims and Jews question whether Trinitarian worship is monotheism. 3 cannot be one. We insist it is. LDS push it further by saying the 3 can be both separate beings and still be one capital-G God. Then there is the matter of exaltation, not to mention eternal progression, or even pre-mortal existence (wouldn't an eternal intelligence be deity?). For monotheists, if one believes there are other gods, worshipable or not, then that person is not a monotheist. We Trinitarians believe we qualify--stridently so. This is why even 'social Trinitarians' are considered heretical by most traditionalists.

Good points, all.  As always, it's difficult to summarize into words on the internet what is in one's mind. :)

If, for the sake of argument, there are others who are "peers" to God, whether in this universe or any other, and whether or not I might one day meet them, they will never be "God" to me.  Thus, I have only one God.  While I said "worship-able", I suppose I should also have added that bit.  They may be "God" to someone else, but they can never be "God" to me - even if I wanted them to be, can't happen.

That fact seems to me to exclude me from "henotheist".  It seems to me that "henotheist" implies the possibility that I can (or at least believe I can) "switch sides".  In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there isn't the remotest possibility of switching sides or adding additional entities to what constitutes "God".  (At least, nothing I've ever heard says that, and I disagree with @anatess2's notion of others joining the Godhead - being at one with them (and still subject to), sure, but never one of them (which implies, to me, no-longer-subject).)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

That does explain the LDS idea. However, those definitions are tailored pretty significantly. Henotheism is the belief that there are gods, but only one gets worshiped. Monotheism means there is only one God, period. This is why Muslims and Jews question whether Trinitarian worship is monotheism. 3 cannot be one. We insist it is. LDS push it further by saying the 3 can be both separate beings and still be one capital-G God. Then there is the matter of exaltation, not to mention eternal progression, or even pre-mortal existence (wouldn't an eternal intelligence be deity?). For monotheists, if one believes there are other gods, worshipable or not, then that person is not a monotheist. We Trinitarians believe we qualify--stridently so. This is why even 'social Trinitarians' are considered heretical by most traditionalists.

Thank you for chiming in (Serious).  Your statement helps to establish my initial point which is that I will tell you all day long I am Monotheistic, but if you reject my claim to that title, I really don't give a crap as long as I am certain that what I believe is true.  As long as I am comfortable with my monotheism, one's lack of acceptance is irrelevant.  Just as the word 'trinity' is extra-biblical, but is a term coined to represent an ideology believed to be based on scripture, so too is the Restored understanding of the Godhead.  The simple fact that we can reasonably use the same source material as evidence of opposing principles is evidence that earthly definitions are ultimately irrelevant.  What is truth is truth, and what is false is false.

In order to come to agreement on what form of religious 'ism' one is, we would have to agree on the source definition.  It seems to me that there are sufficient detractors to the source definition, which ultimately leads the discussion to futility.

The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is that we are a monotheistic faith founded on our belief in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God.  Members of the Church should embrace this teaching and focus more on understanding the emulatable nature of the unity between the members of the Godhead that identifies them as one God and enables us to become one with Them and one another, as opposed to trying to find singular earthly terms that work to define the complexity that is the nature of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil said:

That fact seems to me to exclude me from "henotheist".  It seems to me that "henotheist" implies the possibility that I can (or at least believe I can) "switch sides".  In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there isn't the remotest possibility of switching sides or adding additional entities to what constitutes "God".  (At least, nothing I've ever heard says that, and I disagree with @anatess2's notion of others joining the Godhead - being at one with them (and still subject to), sure, but never one of them (which implies, to me, no-longer-subject).)

I'm no expert on henotheism, but my sense it that they do not worship the other gods, nor have any expectation of doing so. Rather, they simply admit other gods exist. Their devotion is to one god. My difficulty is that if God has peers does he not become god? If there are peers to the Almighty does he not cease to be Almighty? @anatess2 seems to have solved that problem. However, traditionalists will still struggle with the idea of any created being (remember our belief in creation-from-nothing) becoming the Godhead.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, person0 said:

Thank you for chiming in (Serious).  Your statement helps to establish my initial point which is that I will tell you all day long I am Monotheistic, but if you reject my claim to that title, I really don't give a crap as long as I am certain that what I believe is true.  As long as I am comfortable with my monotheism, one's lack of acceptance is irrelevant.  Just as the word 'trinity' is extra-biblical, but is a term coined to represent an ideology believed to be based on scripture, so too is the Restored understanding of the Godhead.  The simple fact that we can reasonably use the same source material as evidence of opposing principles is evidence that earthly definitions are ultimately irrelevant.  What is truth is truth, and what is false is false.

In order to come to agreement on what form of religious 'ism' one is, we would have to agree on the source definition.  It seems to me that there are sufficient detractors to the source definition, which ultimately leads the discussion to futility.

The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is that we are a monotheistic faith founded on our belief in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God.  Members of the Church should embrace this teaching and focus more on understanding the emulatable nature of the unity between the members of the Godhead that identifies them as one God and enables us to become one with Them and one another, as opposed to trying to find singular earthly terms that work to define the complexity that is the nature of God.

This is a fair point. Trinitarians bristle at the Muslim/Jewish understanding of our faith. We are not polytheists. However, I understand their opposition and do not expect to convince them that the Trinity is monotheistic. Likewise, you explain your understanding of monotheism, state that the church affirms this is their belief, and likely expect my respectful disagreement. This is the crux of it right here. Honestly, I suspect we all have gained a little bit clearer understanding of our own doctrine and of each others. Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

 My difficulty is that if God has peers does he not become god? If there are peers to the Almighty does he not cease to be Almighty? @anatess2 seems to have solved that problem. However, traditionalists will still struggle with the idea of any created being (remember our belief in creation-from-nothing) becoming the Godhead.

And the idea of peers inherently contains the idea of division.  Which is inherently in opposition of Oneness.  After all would you really say that Christ is a peer of the Father?  Or would you say that Christ is One with the Father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm no expert on henotheism, but my sense it that they do not worship the other gods, nor have any expectation of doing so.

But in the origin of the word - Greek pantheon - a Greek could worship any number of "gods", no?  Isn't that the idea - that the others are viable gods for the person to choose from?  At least, I never got the impression that a person from one of these religions was required to choose only one, nor prevented from switching to another.  Maybe I just don't understand the word.  One thing I know for absolute certain - I have one God, and only one God (and when I use that word, I mean God the Father, FYI).

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

If there are peers to the Almighty does he not cease to be Almighty?

IMO, this is a mortal perspective because we are so used to everything being finite.  If I have all the peanuts, you get none - because there's only a finite number.  Some things, however, are not reduced when shared - if I love someone, that doesn't mean you can't, nor do we have to divide a finite amount of "love for that person" so that it always adds up to a finite amount.  We can both love the person and thereby double the amount of love without any reduction in love - on the contrary, we increase it.  IMO, the things of eternity are all this way - sharing them increases them, it doesn't dilute them.

NOTE: I do comprehend the reasoning / thinking behind the idea that if there are two omniscient or omnipotent people, that neither really is, I just don't find that reasoning convincing - I don't believe the word needs to be exclusive, nor that everyone else needs to be empty-headed (literally, have no knowledge, sentience, understanding at all) nor utterly powerless in order for God to be omniscient and omnipotent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2019 at 3:09 PM, Scott said:

I liked his answer.   I was just wondering if anyone had different ideas.  PS, I like your answer too.

Thank you.  I appreciate that.

On 12/10/2019 at 3:09 PM, Scott said:

But if you're asking if that has some effect on us and our worship/beliefs, then the answer is no. 

Good.  I think that despite any labels, we have to understand that we desire the belief to define us.  We don't use labels to define our belief.

On 12/10/2019 at 3:09 PM, Scott said:

Yes that's what I'm getting at. 

This wasn't, and still is not, clear from other statements you've made.

On 12/10/2019 at 3:09 PM, Scott said:

I'd say henotheism is the closest definition to our beliefs, but it is by no means a perfect definition.   We aren't monotheists though, at least if we believe what our prophets have said.

This may sound like splitting hairs.  But it isn't.  It is very important to acknowledge the monotheistic elements of our worship and relationship with God because it is so integral to our belief system.  Your take here says, "Yes, we're not completely henotheistic.  But we're DEFINITELY not monotheistic."  You can correct me if I misinterpreted you. But you have repeatedly carried this motif throughout the thread. 

While some "definitional" elements of polytheism exist in our beliefs (remember, henotheism is just a subcategory of polytheism) the part that gives us inspiration and strength and a relationship with God is the monotheistic theme of our faith.  To me, these elements are much more important to our spiritual development and our relationship with God than the legalistic shoe-horning of the label "henotheist" to our faith.

On 12/10/2019 at 3:09 PM, Scott said:

I'd say more henotheistic, but I'm beating a dead horse here.

Well, let me beat a dead horse.  You do realize that henotheistic is just a sub category of polytheistic, right?  And you do realize that such a label has nothing to do with our worship or faith, right?

On 12/10/2019 at 3:09 PM, Scott said:

Yes.   We're unique.    In many ways we aren't like traditional Christians.   Our beliefs are different.   None of those definitions is going to define what we believe.  

Finally, we agree.  Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, zil said:

Maybe I missed it, I haven't really been reading everything, but the thing I haven't seen is this:

Henotheism (if I understand correctly) is a belief that there are multiple gods who are all worship-able, but I'm just going to worship this one that I prefer.

Monotheism says there is only one worship-able God.

And that is why we are monotheists and not henotheists.  No matter whether we become gods or not, we will always have exactly one worship-able God.  No matter whether there are other gods who are currently "peers" with our God (whether in this universe or their own other universes), they will never be worship-able for us.  They cannot bless us, save us, exalt us, redeem us, condemn us, or buy us an ice cream - they are not and can never be ours.

That was PERFECT!!!  That is what I was trying to say earlier when I quoted the "to us there is but one god." Thing and how all these others don't matter.  I was just not articulating it properly.

You have a beautiful mind.  Thank you.

9 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

That does explain the LDS idea. However, those definitions are tailored pretty significantly. ...

Well, I think the idea behind this thread is that since we don't easily fit into any particular category, we have to tailor the existing definitions somewhat.  And if we could create a new word to describe our belief, it would have this as the definition.  So, let it be the word "Godhead" and have that definition combined with the First Article of Faith.  I don't think many Saints would balk at that.  And someone like you, outside the faith, but has some idea about our beliefs would agree that this definition describes our beliefs a WHOLE lot better than these other words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mores said:

Well, I think the idea behind this thread is that since we don't easily fit into any particular category, we have to tailor the existing definitions somewhat.  And if we could create a new word to describe our belief, it would have this as the definition.  So, let it be the word "Godhead" and have that definition combined with the First Article of Faith.  I don't think many Saints would balk at that.  And someone like you, outside the faith, but has some idea about our beliefs would agree that this definition describes our beliefs a WHOLE lot better than these other words.

Again, this is a fair point. In the past some LDS apologist have accepted the henotheist label. Stephen Robinson comes to mind. Others have resisted it. I mentioned previously that one poster accepted the polytheist label. I can see that none quite fits the LDS Godhead teaching--especially when joined with belief in exaltation. Then again, that's what you get for having modern prophets and believing a restored gospel. 🤷‍♀️

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2019 at 12:30 PM, Mores said:

This may sound like splitting hairs.  But it isn't.  It is very important to acknowledge the monotheistic elements of our worship and relationship with God because it is so integral to our belief system.  Your take here says, "Yes, we're not completely henotheistic.  But we're DEFINITELY not monotheistic."  You can correct me if I misinterpreted you. But you have repeatedly carried this motif throughout the thread.

2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

(Old Testament | Exodus 20:2 - 3)

In the context of this discussion, these verses can be interpreted in a slightly amusing ambigous manner. Verse 2 clearly establishes that, as indicated previously, to us, there is but one God, and is therefore supportive of the monotheistic view. However verse three implies the existence of other gods and therefore could be interpreted as supporting the henotheistic view. No matter how many Gods or gods there may be, I think Exodus 20: 1-6 make it clear where our attention needs to be.

Edited by askandanswer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2019 at 7:58 AM, anatess2 said:

This is incorrect.  Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are not 3 aspects of one deity.  They are 3 deities.  The Trimutri does not create one deity out of them.  Rather, the Trimutri combines their 3 aspects to encompass the entirety of human existence.  Although Brahma is believed to have done something awful which caused him to fall completely under the direction of Vishnu and Shiva, neither Vishnu nor Shiva act as a single entity.  The fact that Brahma can do something that which Vishu and Shiva are against proves that the Trimutri is completely incomparable to the Trinity.

What you state is actually incorrect when viewing a Majority of the Hindu Sects...not that it matters, I don't think either of us are going to agree.

You are trying to apply singular belief to all of Hinduism (something which I believe I explicitly did not do, as I stated there are some of the HIndu beliefs that believe as I stated), whereas Hinduism is FAR greater than your singular expression of the Trimurti.

It would be as if you were trying to say all Christianity believed in the Arianistic belief held by a few sects of Christians as the one ALL of Christianities believe...which would be rather inaccurate when veiwing a Majority of Christian Sects as well.

We are instead comparing the origins of the Hindu beliefs with what many of the Hindu beliefs believe in now.    There is no unified doctrine or ten commandments or such for the Hindu's but they do have a decent explanation of what their Deity is.

It may be better for your understanding to see a few of these various Hindu's list their actual ideas of Deity.

URI.org World Religions - Hindu beliefs

Quote

What are the manifestation(s) God in Hinduism?

What are the different sects of Hinduism?  The general name for God in Hinduism is Brahman. The name of the divine essence within us is Atman. They are one and the same, infinite and eternal. However, God is also present in all creation. God's manifestation in creation goes by many names. It is the one infinite, eternal, Divine Being that is manifesting in countless ways. It is like a person at the same time being called "father" by his son, "friend" by his friend, "son" by his own father, "husband" by his wife, etc. A special relationship goes with each name. So the same Divine Lord has been addressed as Shiva, Vishnu, etc and as Divine Mother, Kali, Durga, etc. God can also manifest as an extraordinary being in human form, who is then known as an incarnation of God, such as Krishna, Rama, etc. Since it is the one infinite God alone that is being looked at in different ways, all these manifestations can be prayed to for help and protection. This is the underlying principle behind all the different sects of Hinduism. Those who prefer a particular manifestation of the divinity will form a sect devoted to the contemplation and worship of that manifestation. All the sects, however, will accept the ancient teachings of the Vedas and the Vedanta as the foundation of their practice.

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-art-history/south-east-se-asia/india-art/a/beliefs-of-hinduism#

Quote

Common to virtually all Hindus are certain beliefs, including, but not limited to, the following:

a belief in many gods, which are seen as manifestations of a single unity. These deities are linked to universal and natural processes.

a preference for one deity while not excluding or disbelieving others

a belief in the universal law of cause and effect (karma) and reincarnation

a belief in the possibility of liberation and release (moksha) by which the endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth (samsara) can be resolved

And though the following site has pop ups galore (so a forewarning)...and it is not indicating anyone is for dummies, it is written to a level most I think could undersand...

Hinduism Deities for Dummies

Quote

Hindus acknowledge that, at the most fundamental level, God is the One without a second — the absolute, formless, and only Reality known as Brahman, the Supreme, Universal Soul. Brahman is the universe and everything in it. Brahman has no form and no limits; it is Reality and Truth.

 

Thus Hinduism is a pantheistic religion: It equates God with the universe. Yet Hindu religion is also polytheistic: populated with myriad gods and goddesses who personify aspects of the one true God, allowing individuals an infinite number of ways to worship based on family tradition, community and regional practices, and other considerations.

Here are just some of the many Hindu gods and goddesses:

  • Brahma, the Creator

    Brahma is the first member of the Hindu Trinity and is “the Creator” because he periodically creates everything in the universe. (The word periodically here refers to the Hindu belief that time is cyclical; everything in the universe — except for Brahman and certain Hindu scriptures — is created, maintained for a certain amount of time, and then destroyed in order to be renewed in ideal form again.)

  • Vishnu, the Preserver

     

    Vishnu is the second member of the Hindu Trinity. He maintains the order and harmony of the universe, which is periodically created by Brahma and periodically destroyed by Shiva to prepare for the next creation.

    Vishnu is worshipped in many forms and in several avatars (incarnations). Vishnu is an important, somewhat mysterious god. Less visible than nature gods that preside over elements (such as fire and rain), Vishnu is the pervader — the divine essence that pervades the universe. He is usually worshipped in the form of an avatar (see below).

  • Shiva, the Destroyer

    Shiva is the third member of the Hindu Trinity, tasked with destroying the universe in order to prepare for its renewal at the end of each cycle of time. Shiva’s destructive power is regenerative: It’s the necessary step that makes renewal possible.

    Hindus customarily invoke Shiva before the beginning of any religious or spiritual endeavor; they believe that any bad vibrations in the immediate vicinity of worship are eliminated by the mere utterance of his praise or name.

Now, obviously different sects, families, and individuals will have various beliefs, many expanding on the number of deities (as expressed in the dummies page with more of them listed than the primary three which are standard across almost ALL (but may not all) Hindu beliefs.

I don't expect we'll agree, but I don't think your ideas of what Hinduism believes is exactly accurate across all Hinduism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2019 at 8:58 AM, anatess2 said:

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and any other people in the Plan of Salvation including prophets seers and revelators and even angels are not current members of the Godhead because they have not attained Godhood as far as is revealed.  Judgement Day has not yet come to pass. 

In the revealed gospel, there are 3 Persons in the Godhead - The Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  God did not see fit to talk about Heavenly Mother.  We simply assume by inference she is a person in the Godhead as we assume the Father and Mother are eternal companions.

When we pray, we specifically pray to the person that is The Father in the Godhead in the name of His Son Jesus Christ.

For scripture reference:  John 17:11

I think this is the core of the more recent discussion.  We have many beliefs by the Saints in the Church from many different sources.  Many of these sources are very well respected sources, but are not necessarily doctrine.

A Mother in heaven is a prime example of this.  We have several sources that refer to this, including General Authorites, however it is not found in our scriptures currently in any explicit form or mention.  

Much of what is being discussed is thus more theoretical beliefs that many Saints may have, but are not required for Saints to have.  

When I got the discussion, if I recall, we first covered the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.  We then covered that we had a Father and that Jesus Christ came to earth and redeemed us from both Sin and Death.  We covered Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon as well as why we needed to be Baptized.  I believe we covered Tithing, the Temple , and what sealing was.  These were the requirements for me to understand in order to be baptized (I think the Word of Wisdom was another one we covered, but it was a LONG time ago).  

Most of the stuff discussed in this thread was not something required for me to become a Member.

The reason I would say we are Monotheistic, even relavant with some of the other beliefs people have tossed in is for the same reason that I am the Father of my children.

There may be other families out there, there may be other fathers out there, but they are not MY family, and they are not my Children's Father.  I will always be my children's father, and they will always be my children and we will always be a family.

In a similar (but not quite the same) our Heavenly Father will ALWAYS by our Father.  He will ALWAYS be our God.  We do not have another.  He is the Supreme Being for us.  Even, if by chance, there are other beings in the Universe out there, they will never supplant him nor his role as OUR God.  

In that same light, Jesus Christ is also the Creator and the Father of Creation.  He is our Redeemer and will ALWAYS be the one who atoned for sin and death.  He is our Savior.

We also have the Holy Ghost who guides us and gives us the cleansing fire.  However, we don't know a ton about him other than he is the comforter.  

All three are part of the Godhead, but we Worship God the Father, in the name of his son, as asked us to do so as we worship them.

And for references of at least one Biblical verse pertaining to this (Which could be utilized to justify the Church's stance, or trinitarian's stance both interestingly enough). ..

John 14: 9-26

Quote

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2019 at 4:19 PM, prisonchaplain said:

There are some very wrong ways to worship. Cain discovered this. The Canaanites discovered it.

You'll have to explain how what they did is called worship. I suppose killing one's brother is a very wrong way to worship, but perhaps we understand worship a little differently. The point I was trying to make, however; relates to who and what we worship. If one has no teacher sent from God, then the best we can do is what we teach each other pending a day when a teacher is sent. 

But I guess we'll just have to disagree on the wrong way and the right way to worship. I just don't know how anyone can be so self-important as to dictate to others the right way to worship. You can't prove your 3 in 1 God any more than we can prove our 3 of 3 Gods. There is no physical evidence. I have yet to see how it would make a difference to how one worships if they believe your way or our way. Where is the serious error? (I assume if the error is serious, it would mean damnation and until you show me where God condemned anyone for the way they worshiped,, the condemnation is manmade and not from God at all.

The way I see it, if one goes to the commandments and uses the Bible, then as long as they keep the commandments and worship God the way the Bible teaches, then He is worshiping the right way, regardless of what they think His nature is. Again, the problem I'm having is getting an answer to why it is a serious error to worship God according to one's understanding of the Bible regardless of whether they are right or wrong about their understanding of His oneness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2019 at 4:19 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Certainly, the prophets of Baal found this out.

This issue with the prophets of Baal wasn't about the people who worshiped Baal. It was about the Israelites who seemed to be confused. Was the Red Sea parted? Did the Israelites walk across the river Jordan on dry ground when they entered the promised land? Didn't the wall of Jericho fall based on the exercise of simple faith? Did God feed them in the wilderness? The list goes on and on. The problem wasn't about ignorant people who worship whatever they worship. The problem is about a people who constantly left their God for other gods. The Israelites knew better, but they chose to indulge themselves in the freedoms that these other gods permitted or even encouraged. It had nothing to do with the people who worshiped Baal. God didn't kill them or punish them, they were doing that to themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2019 at 2:53 PM, person0 said:

Okay, I can see where you are coming from, but I disagree that there is a flaw in my logic or my definition.  I said: All powerful (Omnipotent) is the power to do anything that is possible to be done.

From the example you gave about who you love - the power to make someone else's decision does not exist, and hence is not something that can possibly be done.  Your ability to make a decision and someone else's ability to make that decision for you are two different powers; one of them exists, the other doesn't.  I fail to see the problem?

I realize that it is somewhat semantics but any power that exist - regardless of who has whatever power must first reside in the being that is Omnipotent.  This would mean that no one has the power to love of themselves only that it is decided and concluded before what they are granted to choose.  Also if an Omnipotent being is to give any power (regardless of how small or insignificant) to another existing being - once that power is given they are no longer omnipotent.  For me the very concept is flawed and contradicts any possible existence of any other beings or intelligence.

G-d can be "The Most Powerful" or the Supreme Power but I see no logical possibility for "All" powerful.  "All" is strictly definitive with no possible exceptions - logically that is absurd.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

You'll have to explain how what they did is called worship. I suppose killing one's brother is a very wrong way to worship, but perhaps we understand worship a little differently.

It wasn't the fratacide that I considered worship. There was something in the sacrifices that Abel did well and Cain did not. In early creation it seems that the sacrifices were the primary means of worship. No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

This issue with the prophets of Baal wasn't about the people who worshiped Baal. It was about the Israelites who seemed to be confused. Was the Red Sea parted? Did the Israelites walk across the river Jordan on dry ground when they entered the promised land? Didn't the wall of Jericho fall based on the exercise of simple faith? Did God feed them in the wilderness? The list goes on and on. The problem wasn't about ignorant people who worship whatever they worship. The problem is about a people who constantly left their God for other gods. The Israelites knew better, but they chose to indulge themselves in the freedoms that these other gods permitted or even encouraged. It had nothing to do with the people who worshiped Baal. God didn't kill them or punish them, they were doing that to themselves.

I would only suggest that your reading of these episodes is unusual. Most Jewish and Christian thinkers explain God's anger towards the various societies that came under condemnation as direct. Yes, God was angry that Israel was seduced. However, he was also angry at infant/child/human sacrifices. He was angered at prostitutions in the name of deities. He was angered at the cities who became so corrupt they would engage in homosexual gang-rape of Lot's visitors, and then blame Lot for being judgmental. Romans 1 tells us that humanity is without excuse. All can see creation and know that there is a God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I would only suggest that your reading of these episodes is unusual. Most Jewish and Christian thinkers explain God's anger towards the various societies that came under condemnation as direct. Yes, God was angry that Israel was seduced. However, he was also angry at infant/child/human sacrifices. He was angered at prostitutions in the name of deities. He was angered at the cities who became so corrupt they would engage in homosexual gang-rape of Lot's visitors, and then blame Lot for being judgmental. Romans 1 tells us that humanity is without excuse. All can see creation and know that there is a God.

I am not thinking so much to disagree but to clarify.  It is my understanding that things done by humanity in ignorance; that G-d is willing to "wink" at.  It is those things done in knowledge to be evil that I believe enlists G-d's anger.  I say this because it seems that so many that claim to believe in Christ thinking that their belief absolves them of being less responsible for their actions than those that are ignorant.  I believe it is the opposite - that the more we understand and believe the more we are accountable.

As you know - I love both science and religion and believe that the two are joined in the pursuit of truth.  I appreciate the understanding that the beginning of things was chaos and that through creation order is established.  I believe order is evidence of intelligence.  It is interesting to me that the order of things in our universe have evolved to become more complex - I have yet to encounter a true atheists (someone that does not believe their is a divine intelligence) that can explain that evolution in scientific terms.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I am not thinking so much to disagree but to clarify.  It is my understanding that things done by humanity in ignorance; that G-d is willing to "wink" at.  

I suspect that those who do wrong mostly know it is wrong. Even the barely religious who commit heinous acts as a shortcut to whatever rewards their religion promises have got to suspect that they are being used--that their one-off terrorists acts cannot possibly match the lifelong devotion of faithful adherents. They choose to delude themselves. Likewise, so many that claim to be irreligious usually experience the conviction of the Spirit at some point, but dismiss it figuring it's too late (or, perhaps that they have more time before the must 'get religion'). Most that I encounter would argue that others do worse than they, and perhaps get less punishment. Nevertheless, very few if any would claim true innocence.

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