FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Elon Musk says that we live in a simulation (Page 0)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Elon Musk says that we live in a simulation
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Dogbreath: I'm very confused right now. You asserted that exaltation as you understand it is not how Christians would describe Christ. I'm trying to determine *from you* what you feel is fundamentally different about Jesus being God and the state of being a deity ala "exaltation".

Yes I asked you in effect, "Do not Christians believe Jesus is God?" Because Mormons also believe that thing.

Please listen to me when I say this. I'm *not* being pissy, I'm not angry. I'm trying to understand why it's different. So far you are saying it's different and I'm failing to understand why. If I'm coming across as hostile, I'm sorry. I'm affirming right now, I'm absolutely not. I'm sorry that my frustrations earlier in this conversation have set this sort of tone for the conversation now. Please consider forgiving me, and letting me try to do this conversation differently with you.

-------------

Kate:
quote:
Not really. I mean, yes about the cars but the analogy doesn't work. Again, what you and I mean by "god" is so very different. There is only one God. Jesus is not one of many gods or potential gods. God is unique.
OK. Would you be willing to describe for me what you think are attributes of God that differ from what I might think? Ignoring the existence of other cars so to speak.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
Then why are you saying Jesus is not exalted in the sense of being God? If it clarifies anything, Jesus did not become God after his mortal ministry. He was already God come down to Earth.

The concept of exaltation you are referring to does not seem to apply outside of LDS theology.

This is an example of what I was mentioning earlier. You are trying to understand others' beliefs but you aren't setting aside your own framework in order to understand another one, and it's causing confusion.

Within the LDS framework, saying that Jesus isn't exalted is like saying he's not like God.

But outside of the framework you are using, other people believe that Jesus is God, there's no state of exaltation that means being like God, and it makes no sense to use the word exalted as a synonym for being like God.

"Non-Mormons don't think Jesus was exalted" is analogous to "Mormons don't think Jesus was born from the mouth of the turtle that carries the earth". And the response analogous to "So they don't think Jesus is exalted in the sense of being God?" is "So they don't think Jesus existed?"

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
Then why are you saying Jesus is not exalted in the sense of being God? If it clarifies anything, Jesus did not become God after his mortal ministry. He was already God come down to Earth.

The concept of exaltation you are referring to does not seem to apply outside of LDS theology.

This is an example of what I was mentioning earlier. You are trying to understand others' beliefs but you aren't setting aside your own framework in order to understand another one, and it's causing confusion.

Within the LDS framework, saying that Jesus isn't exalted is like saying he's not like God.

It's also like saying, "Jesus isn't God." to a Mormon.

Look, my original assertion that Jake responded to was that Jesus has no exalted status amongst Muslims. I'm already aware he is revered as a prophet and moral teacher by Muslims, so in that sense he is exalted meaning highly honored and revered. I was only pointing out (And agreed it was a poor choice of words) that when I used exalted I mean being a deity. Muslims absolutely reject Christ's claim to be the son of God or God.

Is that a fair statement to make?

Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
BB, I'm not going to try to describe God to you or try to guess what you think. If you want to try to describe God, I will try to point out where your concept of God differs from mine.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
BB, I'm not going to try to describe God to you or try to guess what you think. If you want to try to describe God, I will try to point out where your concept of God differs from mine.

Ok. Will try later. Thanks.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
Dogbreath: I'm very confused right now. You asserted that exaltation as you understand it is not how Christians would describe Christ. I'm trying to determine *from you* what you feel is fundamentally different about Jesus being God and the state of being a deity ala "exaltation".

I asserted that most non-Mormon Christians would not describe Christ using the LDS definition of exaltation, yes. If you wanted to know the difference, you could have saved yourself a whole lot of trouble by just asking "what do you think the difference is?" or something.

That being said, there are a few important differences (I'm basing my definition of exaltation from the earlier link. If you feel that it's misrepresenting the concept, please let me know and I'll adjust accordingly):

1) "To Latter-day Saints, exaltation is a state that a person can attain in becoming like God." Most Christians would say Jesus did not "become like", merely that he is. It's an inherent attribute, not something that he attained. The belief that one can become like God in particular is considered heretical by many Christian sects - the Baptist Church I grew up in, for example, saw it as being the primal and greatest sin. The belief that Jesus attained Godhood rather than being God is also considered heretical. I'm not saying you're wrong to believe it, mind you, just wrong to assume its something LDS have in common with, say, Catholics or Baptists.

2) "This exalted status, called eternal life, is available to be received by a man and wife. It means not only living in God's presence, but receiving power to do as God does, including the power to bear children after the resurrection." Most Christians either do not believe Jesus was married, or, if he was, that his marriage to a woman is not an essential part of him being God. Also, they believe Jesus is the only begotten son of the father, and do not teach that Jesus has children or that his having children is an important part of his being God.

quote:
Please listen to me when I say this. I'm *not* being pissy, I'm not angry. I'm trying to understand why it's different. So far you are saying it's different and I'm failing to understand why. If I'm coming across as hostile, I'm sorry. I'm affirming right now, I'm absolutely not. I'm sorry that my frustrations earlier in this conversation have set this sort of tone for the conversation now. Please consider forgiving me, and letting me try to do this conversation differently with you.
OK, that's fine. And I'd forgive you, except there's nothing I really think needs forgiving. [Smile] I would say that, for me at least, if I say something that you don't understand and your goal is to understand it, you're much more likely to get an explanation if you just say "I don't understand what you mean by xyz" or "could you please explain what you think the difference is?" rather than testing out possible explanations one at a time, 20 questions style. I realize customs and communications style differ depending on culture, but if I were in a meeting with coworkers, for example, and one of them said something that I couldn't quite understand, it would be pretty rude and condescending of me to throw Socratic questions their way or say "so you're saying this, then" instead of just saying "hey Jim, sorry, I'm not sure if I'm understanding you. Could you elaborate further on xyz?" Of course, that may not be your experience.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Dogbreath:
quote:
"To Latter-day Saints, exaltation is a state that a person can attain in becoming like God." Most Christians would say Jesus did not "become like", merely that he is. It's an inherent attribute, not something that he attained. The belief that one can become like God in particular is considered heretical by many Christian sects - the Baptist Church I grew up in, for example, saw it as being the primal and greatest sin. The belief that Jesus attained Godhood rather than being God is also considered heretical. I'm not saying you're wrong to believe it, mind you, just wrong to assume its something LDS have in common with, say, Catholics or Baptists.
It's not quite as different as you might suppose. For one thing, Mormons don't believe Jesus became like God, though some might infer that. Jesus is described as being with God from the beginning, and his ante-mortal Godship is absolutely affirmed by Mormons. We believe that the God described in the Old Testament is Jesus Christ/Jehovah. He created the Earth, and everything in it. He appeared to the prophets described in the OT, and revealed his law. That in the New Testament he is God come down among men.

Mormonism has no set opinion as to whether Christ was a deity from the beginning or if he became a God at some point in the pre-existence. But his path is certainly different from the rest of us.

quote:
2) "This exalted status, called eternal life, is available to be received by a man and wife. It means not only living in God's presence, but receiving power to do as God does, including the power to bear children after the resurrection." Most Christians either do not believe Jesus was married, or, if he was, that his marriage to a woman is not an essential part of him being God. Also, they believe Jesus is the only begotten son of the father, and do not teach that Jesus has children or that his having children is an important part of his being God.

Exaltation as a process and as Mormons understand it, doesn't apply to Jesus. He was God before he was born, and presumably he wasn't married then. Mormons don't have any clue as to whether he was married or had children in mortality. But if he wasn't married, it would not affect our belief that he is God.

How Christ was God having not yet been born or having done many of the things we feel are necessary to become like God is something of which Mormonism has not yet figured out.

quote:
OK, that's fine. And I'd forgive you, except there's nothing I really think needs forgiving. [Smile] I would say that, for me at least, if I say something that you don't understand and your goal is to understand it, you're much more likely to get an explanation if you just say "I don't understand what you mean by xyz" or "could you please explain what you think the difference is?" rather than testing out possible explanations one at a time, 20 questions style. I realize customs and communications style differ depending on culture, but if I were in a meeting with coworkers, for example, and one of them said something that I couldn't quite understand, it would be pretty rude and condescending of me to throw Socratic questions their way or say "so you're saying this, then" instead of just saying "hey Jim, sorry, I'm not sure if I'm understanding you. Could you elaborate further on xyz?" Of course, that may not be your experience.
I think communication styles are definitely at play here. I don't ask Socratic questions, or 20 questions. I *do* frequently ask "Are you saying this?" Because I (And I think most people are this way) are challenged to comprehend what others mean when they say something. My asking "Did you mean this." is me bouncing back what I comprehended as a way to get your OK or correction before proceeding because otherwise I start speaking to the wrong understanding and it makes the conversation worse. I totally get that it frequently comes across as condescending and when I've really misunderstood a person, even offensive.

But I also can't just say I don't understand over and over because people don't want to expound on everything, so I state what I took away from that, in the hopes the person can give me the A-OK or "No, this is what I'm saying."

In our conversation I can see how my question to you about Jesus being God was poorly worded. Obviously Christians believe Jesus is God. I could have asked you to explain rather than what I said.

Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks, BlackBlade. I really appreciate you. [Smile]
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
It's not quite as different as you might suppose.

I think you're missing the fundamental difference by focusing on the mechanics. I appreciate you explaining that Mormons believe Jesus achieved Exaltation through a different process than humans do, and also that the specific process is a mystery (in the sense that you all aren't sure how he did so/it hasn't been revealed), but the details of how he did so, or even when he did so, aren't as important as the idea that he was exalted at all. It's an entirely different concept of the nature of God than the Trinitarian view.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
I appreciate you too Dogbreath:

quote:
I think you're missing the fundamental difference by focusing on the mechanics. I appreciate you explaining that Mormons believe Jesus achieved Exaltation through a different process than humans do, and also that the specific process is a mystery (in the sense that you all aren't sure how he did so/it hasn't been revealed), but the details of how he did so, or even when he did so, aren't as important as the idea that he was exalted at all. It's an entirely different concept of the nature of God than the Trinitarian view.
Whereas I'm trying *not* to focus on the mechanics and just look at the qualities of the end state. Hence my use of the cars analogy. How do you feel the Christian view of God is different from the Mormon concept of deity?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, the fundamental difference I keep mentioning is that for most Christians, one does not become God (or a god), God simply is. I apologize if that isn't a satisfactory answer, and I realize from your perspective the difference may be trivial, but for Christians who are not Mormons, that difference is absolutely essential and lies at the very core of their beliefs.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
To start with, and probably the most significant is that there is one God. Only one. God is eternal, infinite, ever-present in all of creation (not existing in one specific location) and One. God created everything both matter and non-matter and God created everything out of nothing. There was nothing before God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
*nod* Mainstream Christianity usually doesn't tolerate the idea that God could have become God because the very nature of God is changeless. He wasn't created and He doesn't progress. He is the "I Am." He isn't limited by time and causality; those things exist in this material universe he created for us. Changing, attaining, transitioning...those are things that created beings do. We cannot become like God, at least not in terms of power or knowledge. And those who tried (Lucifer, Adam, Eve) were punished for it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Help me understand how something becoming something has an impact on its current state vs something that was always so. These statement seem to be saying,

1 + 1 + 1 != 3

Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post 
PSI Teleport just explained why in a lot of detail in the post above yours, I really recommend re-reading her post. Specifically, mainstream Christians don't believe God has a "current state". That very idea goes against their fundamental beliefs about the unchanging and timeless nature of God.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Yep. One God; three persons. Co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial (of the same being). Not three parts of one god. Not three phases of one God. Definitely not three gods.

As Daniel Webster once noted - when faced with exactly that argument - we, "do not pretend to fully understand the arithmetic of heaven."

Something becoming something has an impact on its current state if a key attribute of its current state is that is is eternal. God is eternal. God was never not God so it is wrong to say that God became God.

[ July 13, 2017, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
What is Christian understanding then for Christ being both God and man, and yet being described in the scriptures as growing in wisdom and stature. Is that too a function of his being born and existing in this world?

What is Christ in terms of being God, in a human body, but...not?

Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Fully God and fully man.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
How does that work? Aren't those things mutually exclusive in Christianity?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Not for God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
I might veer a little here from mainstream Christianity in the way I think of this. At least, I don't feel comfortable speaking for anyone else. But I have a clear awareness of my brain being flesh, and the thoughts I have as existing because of flesh. I say this because I apply this to my understanding of Jesus as He "grew in wisdom and stature." Growing in wisdom (the mind) and stature (the body) are functions of the flesh He was wearing and don't really have anything to do with the Spirit that inhabited it. This is probably unorthodox because most people believe their thoughts come at least in part from their spirits and I don't.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I would agree that growing - in body and mind - is part of being incarnate and were part of that experience for Jesus just as being born and dying were.

[ July 14, 2017, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Help me understand the Christian perspective then on God never changing but still being able to become a man and grow as we all do.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
ETA: The following post was written in response to your question before you edited. [Smile]

Yes. It's not a contradiction. The simplest, and maybe least useful, explanation is that God is omnipotent and we're not. But more specifically God is eternal but He can choose to function as material in the universe He created because He has the power to do whatever He wants. I was created. I have a definite beginning point. (I believe that Mormonism differs here?) I cannot through any amount of effort attain an eternal, omnipotent personhood.

Basically, Blackblade, I can write myself into my own story. But my characters can't jump off the page and start writing stories of their own.

In response to the edited post:

Re: God growing; I don't think most mainstream Christians believe that what happened to Jesus's body while He lived on earth had any impact on His eternal person.

Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for your thoughts. So Christ at his birth was fully aware that he was God?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps. There aren't a lot of Jesus as a child stories in the Bible before age 12 when He talked with the elders. Maybe He wasn't, with a baby brain, able to articulate that? It isn't like He was a magic baby; He was a real human child. How much could a real, human child know and express?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Wasn't he also fully God?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Yep. Welcome to the mystery. [Smile]
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
God chose to interface with us through a limited human experience. That didn't mean He lost all access to His real power.

It's like if I chose to Skype with you even though you were sitting in my living room. I can't reach out and touch you because I'm obeying the limitations I've placed on myself. But if I wanted to "break the rules," then yes, I could.

Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
It's not really a mystery if it's outright nonsensical, you know.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
The More You Know. ..
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The More You Know. ..

So reading this, I had a question. It says that Christ's humanity is now a permanent part of being God. And that he exists as a glorified man, but also God.

I was under the impression that Christians view God as not having a body?

Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
God in the person of the Creator (Father) does not. Nor in the person of the Holy Spirit. God in the person of Christ did. Still? Depends on who you ask. Honestly, I don't give a lot of thought to the resurrection of the body but I suppose that resurrected body is something Jesus may still inhabit. There are scriptural arguments for this. Philippians " But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself." First Corinthians 15 talks about the difference between heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. "So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."

But, I imagine, the "rules" for imperishable, glorified bodies that live in eternity are different from earthly bodies.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Do Christians expect that we too will receive and retain a glorified body after the resurrection?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know how much consensus there is on that one. The Church my grandfather attended believed in the Resurrection of the Dead so literally that they forbid members to be cremated as (for whatever reason, I never got an answer that made sense) they believed a cremated body couldn't be resurrected. The Baptist Church I grew up in believed the Resurrection of the Dead was a metaphor for an entirely new state of being, not a literal physical body as we know it. I'm not really sure how Catholics interpret it.

I think for a lot of Christians, those sort of topics are generally vague and not well defined by doctrine, and even when they are defined a certain way by a certain denomination, they aren't discussed much. I think it's one of those areas where there isn't really an analog between Mormon and non-Mormon beliefs, because it's something LDS focus on and have more revelation about than non-Mormons. Whereas I think most Christians wouldn't have what you would consider a detailed explanation of what happens after they die - beyond "going to heaven to be with God" it's mostly a mystery.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
Do Christians expect that we too will receive and retain a glorified body after the resurrection?

Generally, yes. But there is little consensus about what that means. What we would recognize as a human body? Maybe? A body that we would recognize as ours? Maybe? Something we can't even imagine till we enter eternal life? I think that's the most probable.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
So is the body Christ appeared with to all those various people (And let them touch) after having left the tomb is a resurrected body, but it's not necessarily that permanent shape?

Like when Christ appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus he may or may not have appeared as a human shape?

Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah. That's certainly possible, I guess?

If you look at the description of Jesus in Revelation 1:

quote:
And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

It's still mostly humanoid there. But in Ezekiel chapter 1 (the enormous wheel in the middle of the wheel in the sky, covered in four faces and thousands of eyes, with flame shooting out of it), makes him out to be some sort of Eldrich abomination. I would say that to assume either author is describing what Jesus actually looks like is a mistake, because it would probably be a mistake to say that his heavenly body can adequately be described using our senses or brains.

Again, I want to drive home the point that these are things that are not very well defined or agreed upon by most Christians, and aren't talked about much. They just don't have the same meaning or importance to us as they do to Mormons. I don't think you're going to find an adequate answer to your questions, because for a lot of them there isn't really an answer.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Or at least not an answer that we can wrap our heads around now.

An example of some discussion.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't mind that other Christians think the answers are less defined than Mormonism. I'm asking these questions so as to gauge how orthodox Christians see them. If the answers is, "Our senses are inadequate to suss that out." well that's fine.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
We don't all have the same answers or even answers at all.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Does this asking questions then seem not a very efficacious exercise?

Would it be better if I did my own research elsewhere?

Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Asking questions is fine. So is doing research. But what you will find is that the answers to specifics of Jesus's body post-Resurrection and post-Ascension are going to be as varied and vague as "what happens after we die". No one really knows. If you research and find people who are sure of the specifics, I would be inclined to take whatever they say with a load of salt.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
I guess I feel like, "We don't know" is fine particularly in the context of myself where I thought some pretty complex ideas (pre-existence) were generally accepted. So knowing there's even strong disagreement on resurrection for example is still helpful.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Well not on Jesus's resurrection itself or on the resurrection of the body (our bodies) in general. I mean, we definitely believe in those things as a rule. It is just the specifics* that are vague.

*What did/does Jesus's glorified body look like? What will our bodies be like?

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Administrator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
So for other Christians at what point is our soul and/or spirit created?
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Anytime between conception and birth, I suppose. Whether one's soul comes from one's parents (traducianism) or is created by God in the moment is not determined. The Roman Catholic Church generally goes with the latter.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Probot 2.0
Member
Member # 14146

 - posted      Profile for Probot 2.0           Edit/Delete Post 
01000100 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01010100 01101000 01101111 01110101 01100111 01101000 01110100
Posts: 10 | Registered: Nov 2019  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
777
Member
Member # 9506

 - posted      Profile for 777           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know so much about its relevance to the nature of God, existence, or the soul, but bots like the above are surely proof of the Devil of Hell. [Wink]

Or perhaps not. After all, if the bot hadn't dredged up this conversation from 2-3 years prior, I never would have stumbled across it, and never would have read it either. That was a remarkably beautiful conversation and I think it ended in a good place.

For the record, kmbboots, Dogbreath, PSI Teleport, and others--JanitorBlade's experiences, explanations, assumptions, narratives, and reactions are not unique to his experience with the Church, as presented and examined here. I've been a member of the Church all my life and the assumptions that fed into this conversation--including details about evangelical hostility, the place of the Church in a global context, the nature of deity, the frustrations with creeds, and so on--are not just his interpretations of things. They are institutionalized. They are the cultural narrative of the Church.

Really, trying to talk some members of the Church out of this narrative and into a more open or accepting place is usually as difficult as this conversation shows. According to the historical narrative of the Church, we are hated by most other Christians. We are (presumably) not considered Christian by most, and this is one of the Church membership's major grievances. There is a large victim narrative that is core to much of the Church's development and growth, though I think a lot of its contemporary prevalence is the fault of members, not the fault of the institution. The Church has, in recent years, done a lot more interfaith outreach than in decades past. But the cultural narrative that we are social outcasts still holds strong.

For many with a Utah heritage, that narrative is a part of the legacy of the first generation. Kirtland, Missouri, Nauvoo--we ran two thousand miles across the country just to find a place to settle unhindered. We were forced to give up polygamy by an encroaching United States. We are inundated by a godless and secular culture that eats away at our membership. And so on.

It's not necessarily framed in those exact terms, but that is often the takeaway.

It is hard to view the faith outside of these narratives. It is certainly possible, but hard. A lot of the core membership reinforces them by default. Anecdotal experience from the mission is difficult to work past. (I served in Pennsylvania, where I encountered a lot of evangelical hatred for the Church.) Sunday School discussions often frame us against 'the world,' which really just means everyone who is not us. I agree with that to some extent--we are not the world. We are a 'peculiar people.' It's part of our identity as members of the Church. We certainly can be strange at times and we don't quite realize how deeply removed we are from other religions or religious heritages.

Anyway. I don't have a lot more to add. I'm glad to see that the conversation resolved for the most part. (I realize that I'm speaking a couple years after the fact.) I am not by any means attempting to speak for all members, or even for JanitorBlade here. But his assumptions and narratives have been my assumptions and narratives in the past. Breaking free of those cultural blinders took a long time, and required deliberate effort. I would guess that many members deal with the same things.

Just so you know.

Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mr. Y
Member
Member # 11590

 - posted      Profile for Mr. Y   Email Mr. Y         Edit/Delete Post 
We have awoken the spam clan...
Posts: 1100 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2