quote:Of course, being a God in Mormonism means something different than what most people think of.
I dunno. What I hear most frequently from members is how they look forward to creating their own worlds. That's pretty much the most basic concept of what a god is - a supernatural creator.
Huh, I mostly hear that as a joke. Not that I'm doubting you, I imagine it's different in Utah but most members are reluctant to talk about becoming Gods, or certainly wouldn't be so cavalier about the guesses they have of what it will be like. As Scott said there's a not a lot of comment on what it means, but it doesn't mean what most people seem to think it does when they first hear it (this is based on my mission experience of constantly listening to people describe to me how ridiculous a concept it is).
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: I predict no theist will have the honesty to give straightforward answers to any of these questions.
If you had prayed for the health of Kara Neumann, do you believe she would have died of diabetic ketoacidosis? What if someone like BlackBlade, who claims that his prayers have improved his own health, had prayed for Kara?
No idea. She probably would have unless, perhaps, enough people were praying for her family to get her to a hospital. Maybe praying with her family that she go to a hospital. Again, prayer isn't a lucky rabbit's foot.
quote:
Is it sometimes a mercy when God strikes a healthy girl with a deadly chronic disease?
I don't think that God "strikes" anyone with disease.
quote: Did the Neumanns have enough faith in God? Or too much?
Neither. Their faith was ignorant and misguided at best and arrogant at worst.
quote:
It would be nice to get lots of answers to these questions, just so that were all know where we disagree. For instance, we already know Ron's answer about the God's correctness in killing or sickening children, but I bet not all the theists will agree with him.
But there's no way to know unless the theists go on record with some specific claims. I think that this is a good place to start.
Happy to go on the record as disagreeing with Ron.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I imagine it's different in Utah but most members are reluctant to talk about becoming Gods
Well, it's not like it's a common topic of conversation and I probably hear people claiming a prohibition against caffeine about as frequently, so I recognize that it's not necessarily doctrinal.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't believe that Paul was a prophet. Or if he was, his letters were not prophecies. I think Paul's words are (probably) pretty much as he wrote them.
Option 4!
How did you come to this conclusion?
Were the men who copied down/authored the gospels prophets? Why give their words more weight than Paul's?
How are you using the word "prophet"? Maybe we are using it differently.
I think that the Gospel writers (the Synoptic ones anyway - I am a bit fuzzy about John) faithfully recorded the stories about Jesus that they had learned. They were also writing to specific groups and were human, "non-supernatural" people but there is enough "reinforcement" of certain themes that I believe I can trust them. Paul has a lot of really good stuff to say but they are his words. Inspired words but not the word of God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, when I say the Mormon God is not omnipotent, I generally mean -- quite specifically -- that He does not set the requirements for salvation and is bound by laws which require Him to permit pain and suffering. Mormon doctrine in this way sidesteps the classical Problem of Evil; the Mormon God has to let innocents suffer, because He does not have the power to prevent it without jeopardizing His purpose. A God omnipotent by the standards of most Christians would, by comparison, have chosen to create the universe in such a way that innocents would suffer.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Isn't that what inspired words are? Or are you using the secular meaning of the word "inspired"?
quote:Hobbes, when I say the Mormon God is not omnipotent, I generally mean -- quite specifically -- that He does not set the requirements for salvation and is bound by laws which require him to permit pain and suffering
Which is perfectly reasonable (referring to your definition). We've had this conversation before but basically, while I'm more than willing to use others definitions when discussing it, omnipotent to me has always meant "all available power" rather than "power to do anything". It didn't enter my lexicon as that when I joined the LDS Church. There's also a lot of religious language that I think gets needlessly confusing if referring to God as not omnipotent so I just prefer my definition. My post wasn't (I hope this was clear) an attempt to prove the LDS God is omnipotent, which is merely a semantic issue to me, but rather explain how the limitations of His power do not lead to a lack of faith or ability to provide salvation.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that God "strikes" anyone with disease.
I'm trying to figure out how to phrase this that doesn't sound like "gotcha" because that isn't my intent, I'm honestly looking for a better understand of what you believe.
If I've understood you correctly, you believe that everything is a part of God. If that's true, then it seems logically that disease and the suffering it brings are part of God. Isn't it then reasonable, when some one is "struck" with a terrible disease to say God "struck" him? What am I missing?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Prophet-- someone who has the authority to speak for God for humanity in general.
I am not sure that anyone but Jesus has that authority. And we only have records of His words. I think that the Scriptures speak of God or, at least, of humanity's relationship with God.
I was using "prophet" somewhat differently - more as someone who has a "supernatural" way of knowing things that are unknowable by others.
posted
I need to give your posts some more thought, kmboots. The problem I have with the criteria you've posted is that it seems fairly easy to discount what might be commandment.
Why do you consider Paul's writings 'inspired, but not the word of God?'
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you had prayed for the health of Kara Neumann, do you believe she would have died of diabetic ketoacidosis? What if someone like BlackBlade, who claims that his prayers have improved his own health, had prayed for Kara?
I would have taken her to the hospital, praying for her the whole time. I would have prayed for the doctors; prayed for her health; and prayed for her parents. I would have prayed to know God's will, and to put my heart in line with what it is He wants. I would have followed the doctor's instructions for care with the same amount of dedication that I try to follow God's commandments.
Come now. "Straightforward" means answering the questions I asked. You didn't do that, exactly as I knew you would not.
I'll repeat it again:
If you had prayed for Kara Neumann, if you had had faith that God would heal her without the intervention of weak, fallible mortals, would she have died of diabetic complications? Yes or no?
quote:I believe God listens to our prayers, and responds.
Of course. Mrs. Neumann told hospital staff that she would not need funeral services, because her daughter would be resurrected. A helpful response, you think?
Was that response objectively distinguishable from no response at all?
quote:I believe that prayer allows us to draw closer to him to hear and understand his response.
Wonderful. Why don't you ask for a response in the form of something that would save lives, like the synthesis of the next blockbuster anti-malaria drug?
Ah, but you can't. You will recoil at the idea of God actually doing something detectable and useful, right? God will help a healthy adult like BlackBlade get over a cold faster, but won't lift a finger to save a girl dying because he gave her diabetes, right?
quote:There are too many variables to come up with a consistent, rational answer; ultimately, I have faith that he knows more than I do.
So did the Neumanns! They had faith in God that he would heal, if not resurrect their daughter.
quote:Is it sometimes a mercy when God strikes a healthy girl with a deadly chronic disease?
No;
Good, a straightforward answer. You might have to take it up with Ron, as he approvingly quoted a women he knows who believes just that.
quote:but I don't believe that everything that happens is God's doing either.
Okay, so how do we determine if a given phenomena is caused by God or not? A child gets a deadly disease. Light and Ron have argued that God does sometimes kill children, so how do you determine which children killed by disease were killed by God, and which were killed by something that God isn't morally responsible for?
For instance, how do you determine if Kara's diabetes was God's doing or not?
quote:Life is complicated; God is not omnipotent. I believe, however, that he can turn all tragedy, no matter how deep, into strength when we turn to him and try to understand what he's doing to us.
Can you try to explain exactly what God did to Kara Neumann?
quote:I'm reminded of an instance when Jesus was asked to heal a man who had been born blind. His disciples wondered if the man was being punished, or if the man's parents had committed some sin that caused his blindness. Christ's answer was that the man was blind in order to show God's greatness; and then he healed him.
Oh, so some of our fellow men and women are object lessons so that the privileged whom God wants to educate can learn a thing or two. What a wonderful sentiment.
quote:Sometimes, tragedy strikes to teach the individual a lesson; sometimes tragedy strikes to teach individuals around the afflicted a lesson.
Substitute "a thinking, feeling child is killed" for "tragedy strikes", and then see if you still like the sound of your sentiment.
Well, a child is dead for your lesson, can you at least show that the sacrifice is worth it by explaining what lesson was learned?
I believe that Kara was a sentient person who ought to have had a full life of thinking and talking, and feeling and living, and that her right to do so is absolutely not trumped by your need to "learn something" that I bet you can't even express. No, not even if a non-omnipotent God says otherwise.
But I guess you disagree.
quote:
quote:Did the Neumanns have enough faith in God? Or too much?
I don't know the Neumanns; I can't answer this question directly.
Oh come, I quoted them. And the evidence of what they did is clear, and their faith is the reason they gave for doing it. Can't you even try to draw a conclusions from a given set of facts?
They trusted in God. Do you think they were wrong to do this? Yes or no?
quote:
quote:Infants who die of malaria before they are old enough to think get nothing out of their so-called "learning experience" of life.
In Mormonism, mortality is not the first time we're aware. We believe in a life before this one in which we were individuals, aware, and intelligent, but in which we were bodiless. Mormonism holds that we agreed to come to this life, even knowing the grief and pain that would be waiting here for us, just for a chance to get a body. While an infant isn't cognizant as we'd recognize it of its situation, if the child dies, the spirit that rises from it is completely aware of what it has experienced; it retains all its character, knowledge and understanding from its pre-earth life.
If one wanted to make an argument that it was fundamentally alright for infants to die, because they really had a decent life, and they knew what they were getting into, and they chose it anyway, how would that argument differ from what you just laid out?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I need to give your posts some more thought, kmboots. The problem I have with the criteria you've posted is that it seems fairly easy to discount what might be commandment.
Why do you consider Paul's writings 'inspired, but not the word of God?'
Because they were the words of Paul. Inspired by God. Maybe we had better define "inspired" as well. Paul's relationship with God, his experience of God, inspired him to do a lot of things including write down some pretty cool stuff in letters to various congregations he was nurturing. Not "inspired" as Paul was taking dictation from God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is the Old Testament considered doctrine in Mormonism? Or do they believe it has been corrupted - I forget.
It's considered doctrine, but with caveats. Did you have a specific question about how Mormonism interprets a certain doctrine within the Old Testament?
Deuteronomy 4:39 - "You are to know this day and take to your heart, that Hashem He is the God in heaven above and on the earth below - there is nothing other than Him."
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I still don't understand what distinguishes your criteria about what Paul wrote from what others wrote about Jesus.
Why are Jesus' recorded words more valuable than Paul's?
I think maybe we are going around in circles. Jesus's words are more valuable than Paul's because Jesus is God. We weren't there, so all we have is a record of the stories people told about him.
We have Paul's letters (sort of-some may or may not be written by Paul) but Paul wasn't God.
Oooh. Wouldn't it be cool if Jesus wrote more letters! And we had them. But we don't.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes2: I'm still not comfortable discussing religion with you as we have unresolved business. But I did want to offer you two bits of clarification.
1: You might want to back off on Scott just a little bit, and have a bit more tact. The things you are discussing are very real to him and his family, as he has a daughter who is very sick, and I am certain he agnonizes over what to do for her more than any one person should have to.
2:
quote:Ah, but you can't. You will recoil at the idea of God actually doing something detectable and useful, right? God will help a healthy adult like BlackBlade get over a cold faster, but won't lift a finger to save a girl dying because he gave her diabetes, right?
Quit marginalizing what I went through. I wouldn't have even prayed over a cold in most instances, I have had fevers where I didn't utilize prayer because I felt rest and proper diet would be just as effective.
In this instance where I did pray, I was very sick. I couldn't eat, I threw up anything I ingested, I was bleeding out of my rectum regularly, I had terrible fevers, and the doctors didn't know what was wrong with me. I was a missionary at the time, and was completely unable to work. I tried, it ended up with me throwing up on the side of the road, simultaneously crapping my pants, and nearly collapsing. I had exploratory surgery scheduled.
I'm not trying to put myself up on a pedestal with a young diabetic girl who died. I was sick for an entire week, and my symptoms were just as bad as they had ever been the day I got a blessing. I was completely healed and eating a burger 12 hours later.
Anyway, this may not change your mind, but though this girl's death is a terrible thing, my own circumstances were not exactly a day at the beach. You should stop trying to contrast the two of them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Armoth, many Mormons believe they will actually be gods in the afterlife. There is doctrinal support for the concept and there have been explicit statements from past church leaders to that effect, though the modern search seems more shy about discussing that concept.
So I'm curious - what about all the verses that discuss how there are no other gods? Like the 10 commandments, or the aforementioned?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Armoth, many Mormons believe they will actually be gods in the afterlife. There is doctrinal support for the concept and there have been explicit statements from past church leaders to that effect, though the modern search seems more shy about discussing that concept.
So I'm curious - what about all the verses that discuss how there are no other gods? Like the 10 commandments, or the aforementioned?
I always interpreted it as saying, you will not have any other gods before me. Meaning there may in fact be other gods, you just better put the big G first.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: I have a feeling the discussion will have moved on by the time I post this, but I'll go for it anyways. This is in response to Armoth's comments on a Mormon God being omnipotent (or not being more to the point).
quote:An acquaintance with these attributes in the divine character, is essentially necessary, in order that the faith of any rational being can center in him for life and salvation. For if he did not, in the first instance, believe him to be God, that is, the creator and upholder of all things, he could not center his faith in him for life and salvation, for fear there should be a greater than he, who would thwart all his plans, and he, like the gods of the heathen, would be unable to fulfil his promises; but seeing he is God over all, from everlasting to everlasting, the creator and upholder of all things, no such fear can exist in the minds of those who put their trust in him, so that in this respect their faith can be without wavering. ... For without the idea of the existence of these attributes in the Deity, men could not exercise faith in him for life and salvation; seeing that without the knowledge of all things, God would not be able to save any portion of his creatures; for it is by reason of the knowledge which he has of all things, from the beginning to the end, that enables him to give that understanding to his creatures, by which they are made partakers of eternal life; and if it were not for the idea existing in the minds of men, that God had all knowledge, it would be impossible for them to exercise faith in him.
And it is not less necessary that men should have the idea of the existence of the attribute power in the Deity. For, unless God had power over all things, and was able, by his power, to control all things, and thereby deliver his creatures who put their trust in him, from the power of all beings that might seek their destruction, whether in heaven, on earth, or in hell, men could not be saved; but with the idea of the existence of this attribute, planted in the mind, men feel as though they had nothing to fear, who put their trust in God, believing that he has power to save all who come to him, to the very uttermost.
This is (mainly) why I always describe God as omnipotent. I've learned here that I am apparently familiar with a different definition than most people use though. To me omnipotence means having all power that is available in the universe; I've learned to many (most?) it means power to do anything. God (as understood by Mormons) has the first but not the second. He has all knowledge, and all power that is available. Meaning there is no other God, or chance of a God that could be more powerful, or play a spoiling role in the plan of salvation. Joseph Smith acknowledged that without certain guarantees of the attributes and characteristics of God one could not have faith in Him to save His children as He might be thwarted by known powers or laws. Thus he (Joseph Smith) enumerated what those attributes and characteristics were and included omnipotence (as I understand it) and omniscience to set our hearts at ease.
Hope that made sense.
*The Lectures on Faith has a rather interesting and confusing history. I wont get into it, but just to give a perspective of how reliable it is considered as a text a few words. Its actual content is most often attributed to Joseph Smith directly, though most "scholars" of the work (quotations as even I'm not sure what I mean by that) seem to think it was written by another Church leader under Joseph Smith's direction. For a time it was in the LDS scriptures but was removed after deciding that the lack of a Church wide vote kept it from being official cannon. I think that most Mormons would consider it to be, while not doctrine per-se, as close as one could get without being there. Perhaps equivalent to the words of a modern day prophet? I'm sure it varies from member to member but in the end it is not scripture, but is highly regarded by most as being a trusted source.
Hobbes
Thanks. Makes sense. But the reason why I describe omnipotence (the power to do ANYTHING) to God is not because I'm afraid someone else is going to come along. It has to do with my questions about the universe to begin with - Who created this universe? God? Okay. Who created God? No one - God = existence. Once you say that God has rules and that He did not create them, what is the source of those rules and principles, and who created them?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Armoth, many Mormons believe they will actually be gods in the afterlife. There is doctrinal support for the concept and there have been explicit statements from past church leaders to that effect, though the modern search seems more shy about discussing that concept.
So I'm curious - what about all the verses that discuss how there are no other gods? Like the 10 commandments, or the aforementioned?
Within the context of Mormonism, they are completely harmonious.
But justifying Mormon doctrine through a Jewish understanding? I don't think I'm going to attempt it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Armoth, many Mormons believe they will actually be gods in the afterlife. There is doctrinal support for the concept and there have been explicit statements from past church leaders to that effect, though the modern search seems more shy about discussing that concept.
So I'm curious - what about all the verses that discuss how there are no other gods? Like the 10 commandments, or the aforementioned?
That is understood (to me) to mean that for us, there are no other God's who have anything to do with us, and so neither do we have anything to do with them. One God created the universe we exist within, he is our father, and our creator.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: One God created the universe we exist within
Is that doctrinal? I thought Mormon cosmology was not specific on the universe itself and only addressed that God (actually Jesus, I think) was responsible for the creation of the earth and/or "other worlds".
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.
I don't believe that is canonical, but it's an interesting data point on a Mormon understanding on God. Click on the link for rest of that sermon.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: One God created the universe we exist within
Is that doctrinal? I thought Mormon cosmology was not specific on the universe itself and only addressed that God (actually Jesus, I think) was responsible for the creation of the earth and/or "other worlds".
Well I did say, "for me".
God (the father) directed Jesus to create our world and other worlds without number. All with inhabitants that God (the father) created spiritually. Whether those other worlds exist within this universe, or in some other place is not stated specifically.
Were we to find another planet with life (intelligent or otherwise) I would say there is a very strong possibility they have the same creator. The boundaries of God's (the father) kingdom as it pertains to say his own father's kingdom is not discussed in the scriptures.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...I think you'll find that, with an appropriate perspective and the right amount of faith, that's a gross exaggeration of how God actually operates.
It's worth noting, I think, that with the appropriate perspective and the right amount of faith, you can believe anything.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:...I think you'll find that, with an appropriate perspective and the right amount of faith, that's a gross exaggeration of how God actually operates.
It's worth noting, I think, that with the appropriate perspective and the right amount of faith, you can believe anything.
When I was in 6th grade, my best friend convinced me and a bunch of other guys that we were wizards. Fun times.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It has to do with my questions about the universe to begin with - Who created this universe? God? Okay. Who created God? No one - God = existence. Once you say that God has rules and that He did not create them, what is the source of those rules and principles, and who created them?
Well I guess then my answer was more in line with your polytheism question (the "do you believe in other Gods?" one). However, I think this is good groundwork to answer you next question. I don't know who created the universe or God. It's one of those doctrinally vague areas. Presumably because it has little to do with our salvation or how to live our lives (thus intellectually interesting but of no other value to our lives here). I think within the LDS community you'll find a split on if God created this universe (the way you'd mean that sentence) or if He created only parts of it, specifically the part we are in. Joseph Smith said that the word creation means to organize rather than to create the material itself (the way we create building for instance) and I find that use prevalent enough in the Church that statements about who created what to be at best ambivalent. When it comes to this Earth and those who populate it the doctrine is crystal clear. More remote truths, outside of our sphere of influence are left up to interpretation (i.e. guessing). Who created God? Matt referenced the most quoted source on the subject but he's also right that it's not doctrine. The subject of God's creation is one that just isn't really discussed by the scriptures or the prophets so we can through out guesses but there's no real information.
I know many thiests who subscribe to the idea that God as the source of existence clears up the question of where He came from, and I feel like you have some version of that with God is Existence, but frankly I've never understood that. I'm willing to leave it an open question but I guess I don't understand how giving God the power to do anything solves the issue of where He came from. I guess you can say that in that definition He has the power to overcome logic but then I certainly wont be able to understand what you mean after you take that step. I mean that's definitional right? I can't understand because it's beyond understanding. Which to me is at best no better than just saying I don't know where He came from.
[Reading over this I think I come off a little more argumentative than I meant to. I can't figure out how else to word it so just take this note I'm not trying to attack, I'm just at a loss to understand the issue you have. ]
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: Pray as if everything depends on God, and act as if everything depends on you.
Is that good enough of a philosophy for you?
As for God "killing" infants, I think you'll find that, with an appropriate perspective and the right amount of faith, that's a gross exaggeration of how God actually operates.
I certainly do act as if everything depends on me. Why would I act otherwise?
If God has the power to save an infant, and he doesn't, then he has to take responsibility. If I see a child choking and I just sit and watch, instead of trying to help them, I'd be a monster. Why does God get a free pass?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
It's not a free pass in the sense that God can do as he pleases. I believe in a God that is ultimately good.
You would be a monster for failing to assist the choking child because we should operate on the default of preserving life and helping others when we can be reasonably asked to do so.
God, having the futures and destinies of all before him at all times can make decisions that from our limited stand point do not make any sense. We are expected to do our best with the information we have been given, and give an honest account of it. God can be expected to account for the decisions he himself also makes when he judges us.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for God "killing" infants, I think you'll find that, with an appropriate perspective and the right amount of faith, that's a gross exaggeration of how God actually operates.
Not to cross threads, but if my understanding of the Old Testament is correct, God killed at least hundreds of thousands of infants directly with the flood and tenth plague. No need for passive non-intervention to lay that charge on him.
How exactly do you reconcile that with above quote, Light?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:God, having the futures and destinies of all before him at all times can make decisions that from our limited stand point do not make any sense.
See, that dog don't hunt (from my perspective, at least). It makes sense that the Mormon God doesn't save the choking child because to do so would somehow violate the free will of the adults who're standing around, allowing that child to choke -- or the free will of the child, who chose to eat something on which he's now choking -- and that this somehow violates a fundamental law of the universe by which God is bound.
But saying that God's allowing the child to choke because it's just part of His ineffable plan is, I believe, fairly ridiculous.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LIGHT: Pray as if everything depends on God, and act as if everything depends on you.
Is that good enough of a philosophy for you?
As for God "killing" infants, I think you'll find that, with an appropriate perspective and the right amount of faith, that's a gross exaggeration of how God actually operates.
I certainly do act as if everything depends on me. Why would I act otherwise?
If God has the power to save an infant, and he doesn't, then he has to take responsibility. If I see a child choking and I just sit and watch, instead of trying to help them, I'd be a monster. Why does God get a free pass?
Why do we? We allow infants and children to die all the time without lifting a finger. Or at least without doing everything in our power to save them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, if you're arguing that God gets lazy and distracted, or occasionally has trouble keeping things in perspective, I'll grant the appropriateness of that response. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was responding to MightyCow's notion that we are monsters.
Of course, since we are part of God and God of us...that does lead to some need to take responsibility on our part.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: One God created the universe we exist within
Is that doctrinal? I thought Mormon cosmology was not specific on the universe itself and only addressed that God (actually Jesus, I think) was responsible for the creation of the earth and/or "other worlds".
Mormon cosmology does not specify what it means by universe.
Again, this may be heresy, but another way of thinking about it is instead of 'universe' think of it as 'reality.'
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
LIGHT, why would God allow children to be born where they "didn't stand a chance"? That doesn't make any sense.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is literally an argument over the righteous act of god toasting babies who he had born into situations where they, quote unquote, 'didn't stand a chance.'
A little surreal, that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We allow infants and children to die all the time without lifting a finger. Or at least without doing everything in our power to save them.
God's vastly more powerful. If God is omnipotent in the classic sense, I'm not sure he's got an out.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It has to do with my questions about the universe to begin with - Who created this universe? God? Okay. Who created God? No one - God = existence. Once you say that God has rules and that He did not create them, what is the source of those rules and principles, and who created them?
Well I guess then my answer was more in line with your polytheism question (the "do you believe in other Gods?" one). However, I think this is good groundwork to answer you next question. I don't know who created the universe or God. It's one of those doctrinally vague areas. Presumably because it has little to do with our salvation or how to live our lives (thus intellectually interesting but of no other value to our lives here). I think within the LDS community you'll find a split on if God created this universe (the way you'd mean that sentence) or if He created only parts of it, specifically the part we are in. Joseph Smith said that the word creation means to organize rather than to create the material itself (the way we create building for instance) and I find that use prevalent enough in the Church that statements about who created what to be at best ambivalent. When it comes to this Earth and those who populate it the doctrine is crystal clear. More remote truths, outside of our sphere of influence are left up to interpretation (i.e. guessing). Who created God? Matt referenced the most quoted source on the subject but he's also right that it's not doctrine. The subject of God's creation is one that just isn't really discussed by the scriptures or the prophets so we can through out guesses but there's no real information.
I know many thiests who subscribe to the idea that God as the source of existence clears up the question of where He came from, and I feel like you have some version of that with God is Existence, but frankly I've never understood that. I'm willing to leave it an open question but I guess I don't understand how giving God the power to do anything solves the issue of where He came from. I guess you can say that in that definition He has the power to overcome logic but then I certainly wont be able to understand what you mean after you take that step. I mean that's definitional right? I can't understand because it's beyond understanding. Which to me is at best no better than just saying I don't know where He came from.
[Reading over this I think I come off a little more argumentative than I meant to. I can't figure out how else to word it so just take this note I'm not trying to attack, I'm just at a loss to understand the issue you have. ]
Hobbes
Don't let me forget to answer this. I'd like to on my own, but I have a great philosophy book that does a better job doing it than I would, and I'd prefer to quote from there...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would honestly be better for them to not live than to live in perpetual and unrelenting sin and darkness. If God (in the very rare occasions) does happen to take a life, be assured that He knows what He is doing....You might think that you have a better idea of how to run this thing...
For the record, yes, I have a better idea of how to ensure that children born to evil parents do not grow up shadowed by their parents' evil, if by "better" you mean "does not kill a bunch of innocent children."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's where I have a problem with this whole problem of evil. I, MightyCow, am incredibly more loving, forgiving, moral, kind, just, and righteous than the God of the Bible, in any measure that doesn't give God a free pass to kill, torture, and ignore suffering because he's God.
To claim that God is somehow right to do all these things for some unknown reason just sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there Scripture that explains why God would kill a bunch of babies instead of, say, delivering them to other, better parents?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
LIGHT: Within your worldview, it is clear that people have the capacity to go from a state of sin to a state of grace, a state of hopelessness, to hope. It's the basis of missionary teaching, it's the basis of the doctrine of salvation.
What was it about S & G that made it impossible for God to save ANY of those people (except Lot and his Daughters, who, by the way, later got him drunk so they could rape him and have his children).
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth, of course I believe in God. I think that your understanding of God is wrong. I don't believe that God destroyed those cities any more than I believe God sent a hurricane to New Orleans to punish sinners.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny - this whole conversation gives the lie to that alleged Dostoevsky quote - if God does not exist, then everything is permissible.
And yet, it's always the theists who use God to justify the slaughter of babies. Seems the line should be reversed: "If God exists, everything is permissible."
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
]
