Mormon God is only God because we sustain him as God

  • Thread starter Thread starter BartBurk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
majick275 said:
same old tired rantings of the pseudo mormon zerinus.
Click to expand...
Just for the peanut gallery- he ain’t no pseudo Mormon, lest anyone think he impersonates Mormons or any other nonsense. He’s right on the money.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Seems you are the one that objects to the fact that there are no Mormon theologians.
Click to expand...
Obviously it is a semantic issue. There are plenty of professional Mormon religious writers. Zerinus doesn’t want to call them theologians. I frankly don’t care what we call them, but I agree with Z’s distinction about “true theology”. It just seemed absurd to me to say there were no Mormon theologians and no professional Mormon theologians. I am ready to drop this part of the discussion – it’s just silly.
 
nebula said:
Right. S o you’ve pulled a definition out of… thin air… and now I’m supposed to accept it as authoritative because… 🙂 especially considering that so many of us deny that Mormons are especially lead by the Spirit and innumerable other problems. When you want to have a real discussion of the topic, by all means zerinus, create a thread to debate the nature and use of theology.
Click to expand...
You think I am kidding, right? Wrong! An important discussion in Christian theology is sources of Christian theology (and their relative importance, and how they relate to each other), which traditionally has been identified as “scripture, tradition, reason, and experience;” of which scripture takes the primary place. I did a quick search in Google, and found this article:

scott.brisbane.id.au/theology/sources_of_theology.html

This is not a Mormon article. It discusses the subject from the perspective of traditional Christian theology.

zerinus
 
mf,

I agree, this is irrelevant to the OP.

zerinus, I don’t think you’re joking, I know you’re quite sincere. But if I mention the word and know I mean something particular about it and yet speak of an entirely different meaning of the word altogether we’re not talking about the same entity. I really have no idea why this is even a topic right now.

Again, if you want to discuss the meaning of theology, the merits and demerits of professional theological study, then by all means start a thread on that.
 
nebula said:
Well, if moral laws are necessary, that means they must be true in every conceivable world and therefore they are a logical necessity. That would mean that a good God couldn’t break them anymore than he could create a circle-square because such a sentence is nonsense from the start. Like I said though, natural laws aren’t like that which is why I disagree with PaulDupre.
Click to expand...
Well there you go sounding a bit like Leibniz, and I think that if we had the time I could show that there is a conflict here, because ultimately you are reflecting a dualism that is incompatible with the “every conceivable world” stuff. Dualism and that view just don’t go together. But we have discussed your epistemological dualism before without resolution, and I suspect it would go the same way again, and who’s got the time anyway?

You know me. There’s really only experience and the a priori is just hard wired into us. So I agree with you about the circle-square but disagree that natural laws are any different. Laws are laws because they work, that’s all. So if God was outside the law, He would be a logical contradiction. That is ultimately what I think Skousen is trying to say here, but I don’t expect to really get into it on this thread for obvious reasons. Skousen personifies it, but I think that is the logic behind what he is saying. He’s just being a good American Pragmatist ultimately, perhaps without realizing it.

Translation: Miracles are within natural laws that we don’t understand yet. Take an HDTV back a thousand years and people would shoot arrows at the moving animals they saw. A miracle! Visions! Voices out of the air!
 
PaulDupre said:
You still don’t understand what we mean by “nature”. I think you are getting confused because in English there is more than one definition of the word.

Nature:
  1. the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized; “it is the nature of fire to burn”. (this is the one we mean when we talk about the nature of God or of humans)
  2. the complex of emotional and intellectual attributes that determine a person’s characteristic actions and reactions; “it is his nature to help others” (this is what you seem to be using as the meaning of “nature”)
That’s why this discussion is getting nowhere. Go back and read my post #34 with definition 1 in mind, not definition 2. Then maybe you’ll see what we are talking about.

Paul
Click to expand...
Nah, you’re just posulating another fictitious entity called nature for the fact that fire burns. It’s a chemical reaction, dude, it doesn’t have a “nature”. Neither do you! You just do what you do. You’re noble, you’re a jerk, you act like an animal, you act like a saint. (At least I do…😉 )

I see “The Fall” more in terms of potentials that anything. We don’t have the potential to be immortal without Jesus Christ. He gave us that potential as a free gift. We call that gift grace because we don’t deserve it. But this talk about “nature” and then thinking it is a real thing that Jesus had 2 of, and we only have one makes no sense because it is not definable in any precise way that makes a difference.

How does the Catholic idea of theosis fit in with human “nature”? Is our nature altered so that we are more than human or does it just expanded magically? I bet there’s some logical gymnastics involved in explaining that one.
 
nebula said:
mf,

I agree, this is irrelevant to the OP.

zerinus, I don’t think you’re joking, I know you’re quite sincere. But if I mention the word and know I mean something particular about it and yet speak of an entirely different meaning of the word altogether we’re not talking about the same entity. I really have no idea why this is even a topic right now.

Again, if you want to discuss the meaning of theology, the merits and demerits of professional theological study, then by all means start a thread on that.
Click to expand...
Dodge! I am not the one who brought that subject up. You brought it up, claiming that Mormons are not theologians—without having a clue what a theologian is!

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Dodge! I am not the one who brought that subject up. You brought it up, claiming that Mormons are not theologians—without having a clue what a theologian is!

zerinus
Click to expand...
zerinus, mormons, in general, are not professional theologians, they have not studied systematic theology and don’t even,generally, knwo what that consists of. If you want to talk about another definition, then we’re discussing different things. Get over it man lol
 
mfbukowski said:
Well there you go sounding a bit like Leibniz, and I think that if we had the time I could show that there is a conflict here, because ultimately you are reflecting a dualism that is incompatible with the “every conceivable world” stuff. Dualism and that view just don’t go together. But we have discussed your epistemological dualism before without resolution, and I suspect it would go the same way again, and who’s got the time anyway?

You know me. There’s really only experience and the a priori is just hard wired into us. So I agree with you about the circle-square but disagree that natural laws are any different. Laws are laws because they work, that’s all. So if God was outside the law, He would be a logical contradiction. That is ultimately what I think Skousen is trying to say here, but I don’t expect to really get into it on this thread for obvious reasons. Skousen personifies it, but I think that is the logic behind what he is saying. He’s just being a good American Pragmatist ultimately, perhaps without realizing it.

Translation: Miracles are within natural laws that we don’t understand yet. Take an HDTV back a thousand years and people would shoot arrows at the moving animals they saw. A miracle! Visions! Voices out of the air!
Click to expand...
Well I totally reject your claim of epistemological ‘dualism’ and claim it’s based on a misunderstanding of my position as a simploe metaphysical realist so… ;)… yeah, time to get out the zantac hehe

I think Skousen is saying something stronger than something about logical contradictions- that would be boring. He’s saying something about the metaphysical system of Mormonism which really is unique.
 
nebula said:
zerinus, mormons, in general, are not professional theologians, they have not studied systematic theology and don’t even,generally, knwo what that consists of. If you want to talk about another definition, then we’re discussing different things. Get over it man lol
Click to expand...
There is no “another definition”. You just don’t know what you are talking about. Anybody who knows the Bible well, and can teach, preach, and correctly extract Christian doctrine from it is a theologian. According to your definition, neither Jesus, nor Peter, nor John was a theologians, because none of them had studied “systematic theology”. That is weird, because modern “systematic theologians” depend on the words of Jesus, Peter, or John to get their Christian “theology”. So how do modern theologians obtain their knowledge from ancient guys who were not themselves “theologians”? :confused: :whacky:

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
There is no “another definition”. You just don’t know what you are talking about. Anybody who knows the Bible well, and can teach, preach, and correctly extract Christian doctrine from it is a theologian. According to your definition, neither Jesus, nor Peter, nor John was a theologians, because none of them had studied “systematic theology”. That is weird, because modern “systematic theologians” depend on the words of Jesus, Peter, or John to get their Christian “theology”. So how do modern theologians obtain their knowledge from ancient guys who were not themselves “theologians”? :confused: :whacky:

zerinus
Click to expand...
No, they woudln’t considered professional theologians, this is true. That just goes to show I wasn’t trying to make a moral judgement but for some reason you seem obsessed with that itnerpretation. T hat’s what happens when you’re certain that every post is meant to be an attack 😉
 
mfbukowski said:
Just for the peanut gallery- he ain’t no pseudo Mormon, lest anyone think he impersonates Mormons or any other nonsense. He’s right on the money.
Click to expand...
hahaha…well he has a tendency to reject the doctrines taught by the general authorities of the LDS church and espouse his own. teh TRUTH will come out here though. i will ensure that.
 
RebeccaJ said:
I still would like to know if this is a Mormon belief.
Click to expand...
It must be if Mormons believe, as their church teaches, that the Heavenly Father used to be a human living on an earth like ours and achieved salvation and exaltation. In that case, he must have been saved by his god and therefore required an atonement by his savior.

No matter what the pseudo-Mormons here claim to believe, their church teaches that God was once a man like us and became a god by following the Mormon gospel (Gospel Principles, Chapter 47).
 
mfbukowski said:
I agree, but let me ask another question then

If God created the laws, would he violate his own laws?

And if he violated his own laws, would he cease to be God?

I hope you actually answer these questions instead of letting them pass.
Click to expand...
God cannot be inconsistent with what God is. But that does not make God subject to his own creation. I think that your thinking on this point differs from the Catholic position because you see God as an exhalted man, rather than a non-temporal non-corporeal infinite being existing outside of creation - a transcendent being.

Peace,
Robert
 
mfbukowski said:
So what does that mean? Does he break his own laws or not?
Click to expand...
It means that God is true to who and what He is (Love). God is not part of his creation and therefore not subject to follow the (natural) laws of that creation. He “violates”, a word I don’t really care for, our (natural) laws because he is not subject to them.

What do you think about miracles and how do you define a miracle?
 
josie_L said:
It means that God is true to who and what He is (Love). God is not part of his creation and therefore not subject to follow the (natural) laws of that creation. He “violates”, a word I don’t really care for, our (natural) laws because he is not subject to them.

What do you think about miracles and how do you define a miracle?
Click to expand...
I suggest you read the thread before commenting
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top