Compromising your religion to "keep up with the times"

[Aqualung]

So there was never a "first cause"?

I'm not sure. I'm torn between that seemingly impossible thing and the seeming impossiblity of infinity.

So all the gods that created your god, isn't "god"?

He's "god" but not "God". He's essentially just some powerful guy who happened to create my God.

Surely they are as powerful and knowledgable, and or more powerful and knowledgable than "god" for they created him.

Yes indeed, but other characteristics of God (as opposed to god) are that he be personal and that he be the creator of my spirit, my earth, etc.

Meaning, one god reigns for so long, and then another god reigns for so long, etc...

Oh, no, that's not what happened. God's god is still ruling God, and God will always rule us. There's no switching around of gods, it's mostly just a question of jurisdiction.

Why, don't you see that as disrespectful? I mean, they created your god and all.

If they really cared enough (ie, if they felt disrespect) the prophets would have actually made definitive doctrine about this, not just speculation, since God would want to do his father's will, which would mean us worshipping him. Did that make sense? In other words, it's not disrespectful because he doesn't want that worship. it's like giving your kid a dog. You tell your kid that the dog is his, and he has to feed it, clean it, stuff like that. The kid loves his dog, and loves his father. The father loves the kid, but really doesn't bother himself with the dog. The dog loves the kid, but not really the father. (I say it's sort of like that, because I'm sure God's god would want us all to turn out well, and he's not quite so apathetic as the father is toward the dog.)

Not by what you said above. For you can definitely rebel against your father.

and god could have rebelled against his god, but the fact that he even is a god indicates that he didn't, and he won't.

You also said that we cannot become a god, but god-like. So what is it, do you believe we are equated with god, or not?

I'm not really sure about this one. The bible teaches that if we are faithful we will become joint-heirs with christ. I don't know what christ will be an heir to, but he's already part of the god-head (he is a god), so... well, that's about as far I can go with that one. I really don't know.

What I mean is, constructive criticism can show us things about your poetry, and our faith, that we ourselves cannot, or perhaps refuse, to see. It may be wise, to listen to that constructive criticism. (And I don't just mean the whole cult thing.)

Wlel, this is where you got me. I don't know what constructive chritisism you've been giving me.

I'm atleast glad that you agree that we will never fully comprehend god.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say never, but certainly not duing this life-time.

How can we become "like god" if we don't fully comprehend god? Or are we being partially god like?

We will only become like god after our death and resurection and judgement, and maybe after a bunch of stuff after that, as well. By then, we'll know.

Not what I'd have liked, but it was what I expected.

Lol. Isn't that how it just goes sometimes?

That is not a very good definition of perfect. Perhaps when being used to define imperfect things. But not for defining god. That of course is my opinion.

Well, you of course are entitled to your opinion, but I still think it's the best.

So here is another thought. You believe things that are definitely not LDS doctrine. Did a prophet tell you to change this doctrine? Or did you change it to fit your whims and fancies?

I believe things that aren't covered by LDS doctrine, but things that certainly fit within LDS doctrine. I'm not doing flip-flops like I complained about in the OP. It's almost like that there is no doctrine about what colour god's eyes are. But, seeing as how it is doctrine that he is of human appearance (and therefor has eyes), it's okay to speculate about what colour they are. What would not be okay is to say that god actually doesn't have eyes, because, after all, that's what the other christians think, and I want to be like them.

 

[Aqualung]

AquaTull vs M_V, ROUND Two Hundred Thousand and Forty Three ... FIGHT

DING DING DING

:biglaugh:

 

[Master Vigil]

I'm not sure. I'm torn between that seemingly impossible thing and the seeming impossiblity of infinity.

Infinity is not impossible.

He's "god" but not "God". He's essentially just some powerful guy who happened to create my God.

That's a very interesting statement. I dunno if your god would like you to talk about his father like that.

Yes indeed, but other characteristics of God (as opposed to god) are that he be personal and that he be the creator of my spirit, my earth, etc.

I understand your position, but as I don't believe your premises, I can't agree with your conclusion. But that's ok.

Oh, no, that's not what happened. God's god is still ruling God, and God will always rule us. There's no switching around of gods, it's mostly just a question of jurisdiction.

Hmmm... so god's have jurisdiction now? More limiting.

If they really cared enough (ie, if they felt disrespect) the prophets would have actually made definitive doctrine about this, not just speculation, since God would want to do his father's will, which would mean us worshipping him. Did that make sense? In other words, it's not disrespectful because he doesn't want that worship. it's like giving your kid a dog. You tell your kid that the dog is his, and he has to feed it, clean it, stuff like that. The kid loves his dog, and loves his father. The father loves the kid, but really doesn't bother himself with the dog. The dog loves the kid, but not really the father. (I say it's sort of like that, because I'm sure God's god would want us all to turn out well, and he's not quite so apathetic as the father is toward the dog.)

Have you ever had a dog?

and god could have rebelled against his god, but the fact that he even is a god indicates that he didn't, and he won't.

Indeed, if he is a god, he couldn't have rebelled against his god, for that would be against his "godhood."

I'm not really sure about this one. The bible teaches that if we are faithful we will become joint-heirs with christ. I don't know what christ will be an heir to, but he's already part of the god-head (he is a god), so... well, that's about as far I can go with that one. I really don't know.

I wish you much luck with that one.

Wlel, this is where you got me. I don't know what constructive chritisism you've been giving me.

I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about all of the criticism (constructive or destructive, but I normally see them both as the same) that is out there.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say never, but certainly not duing this life-time.

Not if we are still human.

We will only become like god after our death and resurection and judgement, and maybe after a bunch of stuff after that, as well. By then, we'll know.

So after we die, do we have physical bodies? Because if god is physical, wouldn't we need to be physical when we are with him? Or is god just an immortal physical being. Can god die?

Lol. Isn't that how it just goes sometimes?

It shouldn't be.

Well, you of course are entitled to your opinion, but I still think it's the best.

That's fine, you can limit your definition of perfection too. It is after all, just a word.

I believe things that aren't covered by LDS doctrine, but things that certainly fit within LDS doctrine. I'm not doing flip-flops like I complained about in the OP.

I never disagreed about the flip flops. I disagreed about change without a prophet. And that could be any minute change, even one that seems to "fit within" doctrine. I can easily say that the concept of natural change easily fits within the doctrine of christianity. But you would disagree only because you disagree with the concept that is "fitting within." However, you seem to be picking and choosing what you want to "fit within". Seemingly picking and choosing to fit your whims and fancies.

It's almost like that there is no doctrine about what colour god's eyes are. But, seeing as how it is doctrine that he is of human appearance (and therefor has eyes), it's okay to speculate about what colour they are. What would not be okay is to say that god actually doesn't have eyes, because, after all, that's what the other christians think, and I want to be like them.

It can also fit into doctrine that human appearance can mean spirit and not physical body, but of course since you don't believe this. It won't be put into your doctrine of "what fits within".

 

[pdoel]

Well, his god, and his god, and so on.... I don't know if there is a stop anywhere. It's hard to comprehend either alternative.

Wow, your theories go against absolutely everything I've ever read in the Bible.

No offense, but you lose more and more credibility with every post. I think I'm done with this thread.

 

[michel]

Wow this looks a bit 'heavy' *closes door quickly and pops out*

 

[Aqualung]

Infinity is not impossible.

Yes, that's why I said "seeming" impossibility.

That's a very interesting statement. I dunno if your god would like you to talk about his father like that.

Maybe you're right.

I understand your position, but as I don't believe your premises, I can't agree with your conclusion. But that's ok.

Hmmm... so god's have jurisdiction now? More limiting.

Well, whatever. I don't see it as limiting in any sort of meaningful way.

Have you ever had a dog?

Indeed, I've had a few. My mom actually had a dog that was exactly like hte one I described. It didn't care about the dog, and he didn't care about me (in any greater sense of the word).

I wish you much luck with that one.

Thanks.

Not if we are still human.

Yep, exactly.

So after we die, do we have physical bodies?

Well, right after we die we won't. We'll just be spirits. But then we will be physically resurected and judged.

Because if god is physical, wouldn't we need to be physical when we are with him? Or is god just an immortal physical being. Can god die?

I don't think he can. He might be able to will himself to death, but I'm not sure.

That's fine, you can limit your definition of perfection too. It is after all, just a word.

Indeed it is.

I never disagreed about the flip flops. I disagreed about change without a prophet. And that could be any minute change, even one that seems to "fit within" doctrine.

Well, I never meant to imply that I thoought all change was bad, just the changes in doctrine.

I can easily say that the concept of natural change easily fits within the doctrine of christianity. But you would disagree only because you disagree with the concept that is "fitting within." However, you seem to be picking and choosing what you want to "fit within". Seemingly picking and choosing to fit your whims and fancies.

How do you figure?

It can also fit into doctrine that human appearance can mean spirit and not physical body, but of course since you don't believe this. It won't be put into your doctrine of "what fits within".

That's because LDS have very clear doctrine that God has a physical body. Therefore, making a doctrine that says it's a spirit body does contradict doctrine.

 

[Aqualung]

Wow, your theories go against absolutely everything I've ever read in the Bible.

It really doesn't. There's nothing in the Bible that says anything contrary to what I'm saying. You just think it does. The Bible is quite silent on these points.

No offense, but you lose more and more credibility with every post. I think I'm done with this thread.

Why would you say "no offense" and then follow that with a statement that you cultivated to offend me?

 

[Quiddity]

Oh, I see. Well, they may be "god," but they're certainly not "God" nor will they ever be. They're essentially just non-issues.

Interesting. A little god created a bigger God. Even though the bigger God was fully dependant upon the little god. hmmm....

 

[pdoel]

It really doesn't. There's nothing in the Bible that says anything contrary to what I'm saying. You just think it does. The Bible is quite silent on these points.

Why would you say "no offense" and then follow that with a statement that you cultivated to offend me?

Point one. God says "Though shall have no other God's before me." One can easily come to the conclusion from that, that he is the only God.

In the beginning, there was nothing. God created all things. You may want to re-read Genesis.

As for the second point. I only stated the obvious. You have contradicted yourself many times in this thread. And you've stated many things that are not supported in any religious text whatsoever. Which, in and of itself, contradicts the whole premise of this thread.

You don't like people changing religious laws to "fit with the times". Yet, you've come up with some beliefs that nobody seems to be able to follow or support, all on your own.

No offense is meant. I'm just stating the truths. If the truth offends you, it may be a good time to just let this thread die.

 

[linwood]

Point one. God says "Though shall have no other God's before me." One can easily come to the conclusion from that, that he is the only God.

It`s even easier to come to the conclusion that he`s not the only god and is angered when his followers give respect to the other god/gods.

The OT must be read in context and in context it seems to me there were at least a couple of other gods.

 

[nutshell]

WOW!!! I agree with linwood...I need to mark this day on my calendar.

 

[Quiddity]

The OT must be read in context and in context it seems to me there were at least a couple of other gods.

Other gods that the Israelites worshipped? Where?

 

[nutshell]

Other gods that the Israelites worshipped? Where?

I know you're directing this question to linwood, but is it possible the Israelites had picked up the tradition of worshipping idols from the Egyptians and that these are the "other gods" God is speaking of.

 

[linwood]

Other gods that the Israelites worshipped? Where?

Not necessarily the Israelites, however there is that golden calf story.

The story of Ballam is telling, if memory serves me he was somewhat of a medium who could speak with the gods.
He spoke with Yaweh and the implication is that he spoke with other gods in the same way.
He himself didn`t make any real distinctions between these different gods but spoke with them and used them for his own means at times.

The Israelites had their god, they fought people with other gods but it seems to me they did so believing their god was the more powerful not necessarily the "only".

 

[Quiddity]

I know you're directing this question to linwood, but is it possible the Israelites had picked up the tradition of worshipping idols from the Egyptians and that these are the "other gods" God is speaking of.

Not necessarily the Israelites, however there is that golden calf story.

The story of Ballam is telling, if memory serves me he was somewhat of a medium who could speak with the gods.
He spoke with Yaweh and the implication is that he spoke with other gods in the same way.
He himself didn`t make any real distinctions between these different gods but spoke with them and used them for his own means at times.

The Israelites had their god, they fought people with other gods but it seems to me they did so believing their god was the more powerful not necessarily the "only".

Ok that clarified things. But what do these "other gods" [which technically were demons of different sorts IMO] have to do with the gods that created God almighty?

 

[nutshell]

Ok that clarified things. But what do these "other gods" [which technically were demons of different sorts IMO] have to do with the gods that created God almighty?

Completely unrelated in my opinion.

We have no information in the scriptures about anything that happened before "In the beginning..." except for a few LDS leaders' philosophy about the beginnings of God.

 

[linwood]

Ok that clarified things. But what do these "other gods" [which technically were demons of different sorts IMO] have to do with the gods that created God almighty?

You`re talking to someone who holds none of these gods as valid.

However who is to say which god created the universe?
Who is to say how it was done?

The texts we rely on for insight into this survive only because their authors were the victors in these altercations.
We can`t possibly really "know" so we must "believe".

From my POV it is far more rational to believe none of these gods did anything.
I just can`t get into the infinite regression of gods it would take to formulate that belief.

Get rid of the gods and everything makes more sense.

 

[Quiddity]

Completely unrelated in my opinion.

We have no information in the scriptures about anything that happened before "In the beginning..." except for a few LDS leaders' philosophy about the beginnings of God.

But that was the context in which linwood addressed and that pdoel was talking about. What exactly were you agreeing with linwood about then?

 

[nutshell]

But that was the context in which linwood addressed and that pdoel was talking about. What exactly were you agreeing with linwood about then?

That there were "other gods" that the Israelites worshipped.

Who those gods are, however, we may disagree.

 

[Aqualung]

Interesting. A little god created a bigger God. Even though the bigger God was fully dependant upon the little god. hmmm....

I didn't say he was a littler god.