Stephen168
New member
Excellent point:thumbsup:
- Status
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Or when I look at a 1973 corvette from the front it is the same 1973 corvette when I look at it from the back.
or all 1973 corvettes are the same.
or all red 1973 corvettes are the same.
or all automobiles are the same
At what specificity are they the “same” or not?
Tom says the first and the last, nothing in the middle.
My point is, Tom seem to see to things that are not alike as the same. Then is trying to say Catholic scholars describe this as the word same having two senses. Basically he’s mixing Mormon views into Catholic teaching and trying to change the definition of the word “same” to make it work.
A
ajcstr
Guest
Catholics and Mormons use the same vocabulary but have different dictionaries !
J
jane_doe
Guest
As do Protestants and Catholics, as well as Protestants and Mormons.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
From what I see LDS members really can’t count on anything from prophet to prophet or even moment to moment.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Imagine sitting in General Conference in 1960, and hearing one of the Lord’s apostles, Spencer Kimball, say this:
**"The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised (2 Ne. 30:6). In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."**
scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1091&era=yes
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
That’s repulsive.Imagine sitting in General Conference in 1960, and hearing one of the Lord’s apostles, Spencer Kimball, say this:
**"The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised (2 Ne. 30:6). In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."**
scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1091&era=yes
E
eddie_too
Guest
been away, but a mormon said that their faith does teach that matter is infinite and eternal and that it teaches that God is also infinite and eternal.
from that would flow the logical conclusion that in the mormon faith matter is god.
now i am sure the mormons do not teach that matter is god, but they do teach that matter is uncreated. how else could it be eternal? unless the mormon religion does not define the word eternal to mean without beginning or end as we RCs define the word eternal.
as for the word infinite, we RCs define the word infinite to mean unlimited. when we use the word in relationship to almighty God, we mean unlimited in fact. we do not mean unlimited in theory as it is used in mathematics.
there can only be one being who is unlimited in fact. that is because it is irrational to imagine that an limited being does not limit all other beings. in other words, reason tells us that it is impossible to have two unlimited beings. if someone disagrees, i ask them to explain how that is possible.
maybe the mormons use definitions for the words infinite and eternal that differ from the RC definitions of the words.
if so, i would welcome reading the mormon definitions. unless RCs and mormons can agree on the definitions of the words infinite and eternal, there is no point in them discussing the nature of almighty God with each other.
from that would flow the logical conclusion that in the mormon faith matter is god.
now i am sure the mormons do not teach that matter is god, but they do teach that matter is uncreated. how else could it be eternal? unless the mormon religion does not define the word eternal to mean without beginning or end as we RCs define the word eternal.
as for the word infinite, we RCs define the word infinite to mean unlimited. when we use the word in relationship to almighty God, we mean unlimited in fact. we do not mean unlimited in theory as it is used in mathematics.
there can only be one being who is unlimited in fact. that is because it is irrational to imagine that an limited being does not limit all other beings. in other words, reason tells us that it is impossible to have two unlimited beings. if someone disagrees, i ask them to explain how that is possible.
maybe the mormons use definitions for the words infinite and eternal that differ from the RC definitions of the words.
if so, i would welcome reading the mormon definitions. unless RCs and mormons can agree on the definitions of the words infinite and eternal, there is no point in them discussing the nature of almighty God with each other.
J
jane_doe
Guest
Correct.
No. Matter is just an inanimate thing. God is the majestic King
E
eddie_too
Guest
if matter is uncreated, i.e. infinite and eternal, it is not a creature. if it is not a creature, it must be the creator. maybe that conclusion is reasonable to a mormon, i do not find that conclusion reasonable but am willing to read what a qualified mormon theologian might write to explain its reasonableness.
J
jane_doe
Guest
No. A thing can just be a thing. It doesn’t have to be a creature or a creator.
E
eddie_too
Guest
the idea that the infinite and eternal is just a thing most nearly mirrors the atheists’ concept of reality.
you cannot have two real infinite beings. one infinite being necessarily limits all other beings.
you cannot have two real infinite beings. one infinite being necessarily limits all other beings.
J
jane_doe
Guest
You are making many unjustified leaps of logic here…
E
eddie_too
Guest
you can explain how the idea of two real infinite beings can exist. i cannot. by definition, infinite means without limits. if one being is infinite, no other being can be infinite because any other being besides the infinite being would necessarily be limited by the infinite being.
you may think it makes sense for two beings to both be unlimited, but if that is what you think you should be able to explain how this can be.
how can two distinct beings be unlimited? it does not make sense to me. it is not rational or logical to me. please explain it so that i can understand it.
you may think it makes sense for two beings to both be unlimited, but if that is what you think you should be able to explain how this can be.
how can two distinct beings be unlimited? it does not make sense to me. it is not rational or logical to me. please explain it so that i can understand it.
J
jane_doe
Guest
- Matter is a thing. It is not a being.
- You logic does not flow here. Yes, there can be two infinite things/beings co-exisiting and they do not have to limit each other. There is no conflict.
Just as one example: say you have 2 children. Your love for the eldest child in without end-- infinite. Likewise your love for the younger child is without end-- infinite. The fact that you love your oldest infinitely not not mean you cannot also love your youngest infinitely.
Stephen168
New member
Let’s review:
The word homoousios had a variety of meanings in the 3rd century.
The theological meaning of homoousios was ironed out in the 4th century; therefore, had one meaning at the end of the century.
The word consubstantial is a 14th century English word and a translation of the one meaning of homoousios.
Therefore, consubstantial has always had one meaning.
I still claim that consubstantial has only on meaning, because you have not proven otherwise.
TOmNossor said:
You are free to embrace the social trinity. I don’t care. But the two scholars, David Kemball-Cook and Bryan Cross, you have referenced in this thread, both say the social trinity can not be embraced as a Christian understanding of the ONE God. It is polytheism. I agree with them.
I think you really believe this, but it has been clearly referenced on this thread that the Mormon Church still teaches that God was once a man, and man can become God. One Mormon, gazelam, spent some time trying to justify this Mormon teaching.
While Christ never sinned, man does, and the Mormon Church claims man can become God. Reason would tell us that in Mormonism there is nothing truly unique about God or Jesus Christ; they are creatures just like man. To use a Christian word: Mormon’s claim God and humanity are consubstantial; of the same nature.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Well, at least I was half right. You will no longer say:
This of course is because Father Davis and Dr. Cross embrace the “numeric sense.”
I want the whole enchilada, so …
Let me offer you this statement from Chalcedon:
Through out this thread, I have claimed the Catholic position is that these two uses of “consubstantial” had different meanings. It was long ago that I read Schaff, and I have seen this in numerous places since, but this is all I can find for you:
So, again, are you going to maintain that consubstantial in the Chalcedon Creed has only one meaning. The ONLY folks who do this advocate that it has one meaning and that is “generic” oneness of substance.
So, can I get, “at least you will no longer claim consubstantial has one meaning or that numeric consubstantiality is modalism?”
I understand quite well what Cross and Cook say. They say the view Catholics have espoused concerning the Trinity is “unintelligible to us.” Dr. Cross embraces a theology that is unintelligible. Cook refuses to violate the law of non-contradiction, employs reason, and is a modalist. He says what you and Dr. Cross TRY to defend is either, “IMPOSSIBLE” or “CONTRADICTION.” Did you actually read through Cross and recognize who you have been quoting so favorably?
I am less monotheistic than a modern Jew, a Muslim, or Cook who is a modalist. I choose to embrace a theology that does not violate the law of non-contradiction. I still claim to be a monotheist AND that someone who claims three persons in God has no RATIONAL place from which to call me a polytheist.
I also believe that many times the Bible refers to “One God” the Bible means “The Father” and that the Father is the “fons totius divinitas,” There is subordination in my concept of the Trinity.
I am sincere when I say that I am happy that you believe I believe what I say I believe.
I believe God the Father was once a man just like God the Son was once a man, but neither were merely a man in the way I am merely a man.
I believe that men can become gods through the atonement of Christ. Christ became what we are so that we could become what He is. Christ did not partially become man so that we can partially become gods.
And, I hesitate to say this, but I do in fact believe that God and man are generically consubstantial. The divine nature is the communion into which we are called not some metaphysical substance or metaphysical non-substance (that was a big controversy for the early church too BTW). Christ kenotically emptied Himself of the perfect union (while never being totally disconnected with the POSSIBLE exception of a few minutes on the cross) He enjoyed with His Father to become human, to experience separation, culminating in His words, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”
This is a beautiful truth to me, thus, “I hesitate to say this.”
Charity, TOm
T
Tarquin
Guest
I remember hearing or reading that, but it was quite a few years ago. I was also told by more than one Melchizedek Priesthood holder, and may have read it in one of Pratt’s writings or Young’s sermons, that if any harm is about to be done against the body of an Exalted Being, such as a hand being cut off, the “spirit” within that more bodily part quickly withdraws, faster than lightning, so that the spirit hand is not cut off when the Exalted bodily hand is cut off. Which leads to many difficult questions in consequence. It’s interesting, but fruitless trying to get an explanation for it, in my experience.
Stephen168
New member
No, I stand by what I said and I’d say it again.
Yes, it does. I know.
T
Tarquin
Guest
God in His Absoluteness is truly beyond understanding. How can it be otherwise for a being within a creation filled with conditioning elements and events, in trying to relate to a Being outside and prior to that Creation, as Father Spitzer says, “unconditioned transcendent reality.”
I personally believe that one source of “eternal joy” in the Hereafter is that, while we will not and never could have the potential to comprehend God, neither essentially nor any other way, we will each day find we understand him better, know him more intimately. That’s my personal belief, and if I’m wrong, “God will provide.”
- Status