Answer this.
Martyn O'Connor
have been trying to get an answer from a Mormon for quite some time, and all
my efforts have amounted to have been one of two things:
1) The Mormon stops talking to me.
2) The Mormon calls me a son of Satan then stops talking to me.
My question is this: Whay do Mormon's believe they will become Gods?
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/9/2000 6:17 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <90uega$5c9$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>
>
>Please please please answer with actual evidence, the following question. I
>have been trying to get an answer from a Mormon for quite some time, and all
>my efforts have amounted to have been one of two things:
>
>1) The Mormon stops talking to me.
>
>2) The Mormon calls me a son of Satan then stops talking to me.
>
Because that's what the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, taught.
Randy J.
Martyn O'Connor
I
> >have been trying to get an answer from a Mormon for quite some time, and
all
> >my efforts have amounted to have been one of two things:
> >
> >1) The Mormon stops talking to me.
> >
> >2) The Mormon calls me a son of Satan then stops talking to me.
> >
> >My question is this: Why do Mormon's believe they will become Gods?
> Because that's what the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, taught.
>
> Randy J.
I asked for evidence, why is this doctrine, meaning why (or even how) were
so many peole convinced they could be Gods.
George Williams
>> Because that's what the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, taught.
>>
>> Randy J.
>
>
>I asked for evidence, why is this doctrine, meaning why (or even how) were
>so many peole convinced they could be Gods.
>
Randy already answered the question. Mormonism is not a sola scriptura
religion. In this it is similar to Roman Catholicism. If an official of the
church, duly authorized to make doctrinal pronouncements at God's behest says
something, then it becomes doctrine.
Nothing is required other than the official's say so. We have no evidence
for the extrabiblical doctrine of the translation of the Virgin Mary. We have
no evidence for the extrabiblical doctrine of exaltation to Godhood. Each of
these two doctrines rests upon the sayso of one respective man who is at the
apex of the feudal pyramid in his church.
Joseph Smith is the Pope, and what he says goes. He didn't call himself
the former, but he did proclaim the latter.
And that, in many words, is what Randy said in few.
Raleigh
Raleigh
* If you wake up and find me driving, you'll know you're in trouble
--Major
Don West
Martyn O'Connor
the sayso of a man. Regardless of who he was or what he did, he was a man,
and God is a God, more powerful than any man. To me it seems like one day
Joseph Smith said, "Hmm, I think if we stay faithful to God, we will one day
have our own planet and be a God over that. Yes, that sounds good.", and
suddenly it became doctrine.
In my church, any man professing he would one day be a God himself would be
kicked out/handed over to the authorities. Let me know (and I am seriously
enquiring), what convinced you this is th truth.
"George Williams" <ralei...@aol.comQQQQ> wrote in message
news:20001209205421...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
Reverend Phlegm
Martyn O'Connor wrote:
> You take the sayso of man? I'd be very wary of basing my own salvation on
> the sayso of a man. Regardless of who he was or what he did, he was a man,
> and God is a God, more powerful than any man. To me it seems like one day
> Joseph Smith said, "Hmm, I think if we stay faithful to God, we will one day
> have our own planet and be a God over that. Yes, that sounds good.", and
> suddenly it became doctrine.
> In my church, any man professing he would one day be a God himself would be
> kicked out/handed over to the authorities. Let me know (and I am seriously
> enquiring), what convinced you this is th truth.
I think Martyn is a troll... What do y'all think? ;-)
Tyler Waite
Tyler Waite
"Martyn O'Connor" <mar...@letigre.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:90urnt$egr$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> You take the sayso of man? I'd be very wary of basing my own salvation on
> the sayso of a man. Regardless of who he was or what he did, he was a man,
> and God is a God, more powerful than any man.
still a man. Where are your words from God that were not given to you through a man? You cannot even claim that Christ gave you
any instruction because even his 'words' come to you through the writings of a man and most of the new testament is not even from
the men who were his contemporaries, or the men he personally chose as his apostles. So what is the basis that you have for feeling
you are on firmer theological ground than the mormons? I can understand why your mormon friend has stopped talking to you.
Adrian Parker
man.
Man.
Not God.
Want to tell me that man wrote those things through divine right? Fine with
me, I'll accept that. So was it spoken of Exaltation to Godhood.
Adrian
tabitha
how about Jesus of Nazareth (in John 10) quoting Ps. 82:6?
Ps. 82:6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most
High.
John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
gods?
--
--tabitha--
PLEASE NOTE MY *NEW* E-MAIL ADDRESS!
mailto:tabi...@valueweb.net
Adrian Parker
Exaltation to Godhood.
This verse you have quoted, is there more? Because that certainly doesn't
make it obvious to me that Exaltation exists. In fact aside from the vague
reference to "gods" it doesn't even suggest a mortal shall be risen to such
status. In my opinion anyway.
Adrian
Stephen Skinner
To make it simple it amounts to being one with the Father and Christ.
Christ taught that we should be one just as he and his Father are one. He
also tought that we can be heir with Christ. That is it in a nutshell.
STEVEnews:90uega$5c9$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
The Old Man
"Martyn O'Connor" <mar...@letigre.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> You take the sayso of man? I'd be very wary of basing my own
salvation on
> the sayso of a man. Regardless of who he was or what he did, he was
a man,
> and God is a God, more powerful than any man. To me it seems like
one day
> Joseph Smith said, "Hmm, I think if we stay faithful to God, we will
one day
> have our own planet and be a God over that. Yes, that sounds good.",
and
> suddenly it became doctrine.
> In my church, any man professing he would one day be a God himself
would be
> kicked out/handed over to the authorities. Let me know (and I am
seriously
> enquiring), what convinced you this is th truth.
Sir or Mam', what convices you that what your preacher says is true?
Is this not also the word of a man or woman, as the case may be? There
is no real evidence that Jesus was resurrected, but we believe it
because some man wrote about it. There is no real evidence that Mary
was a virgin, but we believe it because some man wrote about it. The
Old Man
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
The Old Man
Mr. Reverend, agree. The above post sounded rather suspicious to me.
The Old Man
Mr. Waite, hear, hear; applaud, applaud . . . also, well said. The Old
The Old Man
Ms. Tabitha, congratulations, you have effectively answered the
questions. (How's the baby?) The Old Man
>
> PLEASE NOTE MY *NEW* E-MAIL ADDRESS!
> mailto:tabi...@valueweb.net
>
Martyn O'Connor
"tabitha" <tabi...@valueweb.net> wrote in message
news:3A330D47...@valueweb.net...
This I know is figurative, as in a similar context we are also all referred
to as Princes and Priests of Israel, made to sit in heavenly places with
God.
Martyn O'Connor
this doctrine cdomes from, whenever I hear it spoken, the big "BLASPHEMY"
alarm goes off with spinning red lights and sirens. To imply that you and
me will ever be God's equal. There are a lot of vague references made to
scripture, but none to really back it up. For me, you basically have to be
able to defend a doctrine in court with many clear Biblical scriptures to
confirm it before it becomes real.. Do you know what I mean. (Oh, and
no-one has yet called me the Son of Satan.)
"Stephen Skinner" <ski...@grn.mmtr.or.jp> wrote in message
news:3a331cf5$0$90566$45be...@newscene.com...
Copperhead
Of course, but what Usenet post isn't a troll?
Agkistrodon
Adrian Parker
> this doctrine cdomes from
I'm sketchy on sources, but I'll give this a shot anyway. Want direct and
explicit quotes? Go read the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great
Price. Read them thoroughly, and without pre-conception of content. Then
you will have your answers, the answers you seek.
And if all else fails, do what the missionaries wisely tell me to do when
faced with questions beyond their ability, pray. Do you want answers, real
answers, pray. Not for the purpose of proving others wrong, but for the
sake of a learning relationship between a spiritual father and son. You
sound like a man of faith, one who believes in God anyway, so why do you ask
everyone other then him to answer questions if you can't be satisfied with
answers you are given? If you truly believe God exists, there is no reason
you will not receive answers. If you don't believe God exists, well, let's
face it if you didn't believe he existed you wouldn't be saying how
illogical it is for mortals to be exalted.
Pray. Pray in sincerety and you will receive your answer.
And for the record, this is a non-Mormon telling you how to get answers.
Adrian
Alan Faircloth
"Adrian Parker" <adrian...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Before I write this let me make it clear that I am not against the idea of
> Exaltation to Godhood.
>
> This verse you have quoted, is there more? Because that certainly doesn't
> make it obvious to me that Exaltation exists. In fact aside from the vague
> reference to "gods" it doesn't even suggest a mortal shall be risen to such
> status. In my opinion anyway.
I agree; and I have done the research. It was so long ago I can't remember
what I found out. haha Warning: Tabitha is a new ager posing as a Mormon.
--
title:God http://www.alanfaircloth.com
chris mccabe
to become a god? think about it--if God created all the universe, and everything
in it, created all of us, and gave us life . . . why would you not want to
become a god youself? for me, that's incredible. many on here use science to try
to disprove the gospel. i think the assumption is that all the science we need
has been laid out on the proverbial table. i hold that not all science is known
yet, but is continually being learned and, in some cases, overturning long-held
scientific evidence. i don't doubt God exists, and i sure hope that, one day,
i'll be like he is now. eventually.
chris mccabe
chris mccabe
chris mccabe
chris mccabe
best posted answers to a question of this magnitude that i've read in a long
time.
chris mccabe
Reverend Phlegm
tabitha wrote:
> how about Jesus of Nazareth (in John 10) quoting Ps. 82:6?
>
> Ps. 82:6
> 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most
> High.
>
Don't forget the rest of the statement they you snipped off:
...But ye shall die like men and fall like one of the princes.
God is talking about human beings here (ones that even the Mormons would agree are
not exalted yet) God had given the rulers of Israel sovereignty and made them "gods"
that is men who wield power on the earth. But they are not really gods, because they
will die like men, and they will all fall like princes or rulers always do.
This Psalm cannot refer to Mormon style exaltation since:
1) God is talking about mortal men who are living on earth.
2) God tells them that they will die, and they will fall like all other "gods"-- that
is, those who exercise their will and authority over other people. (In Mormon
theology the exalted gods will never fall)
The Lord cannot be referring to gods that are like himself, or even potentially like
himself because in Isaiah he says:
"Ye are my witnesses saith the LORD and my servant whom I have chosen: That ye may
know and believe me, and understand that I am he: Before me there was no god formed,
neither shall there be after me." 42:10
"Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God I know not any." 44:8
Guy R. Briggs
>
> You take the sayso of man? I'd be very wary of basing my
> own salvation on the sayso of a man.
>
Abraham, Issac and Jacob not men? Moses? Isaiah?
I would posit that /all/ of them were men to whom the word of God
came. They recorded it and that's how we know anything about God at
all. If you are a Bible-believing Christian, you are "basing [your]
own salvation on the sayso of [men]".
As Mormons, we believe that the word of God has also come to men in
modern times. That is, after all, the Biblical model: God revealing
his secrets to his servants, the prophets (Amos 3:7)
<remainder snipped>
bestRegards,
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guy R. "BrickWall" Briggs, MCSE* - net...@GeoCities.com
Used cars - Land - Whiskey - Manure - Nails
Fly Swatters - Racing Forms - Bongos
Wars Fought - Tires Balanced - Assassinations Plotted
Revolutions Started - Governments Run - Uprisings Quelled
Tigers Tamed - Bars Emptied - Orgies Planned
*Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
I also program computers
Jeff Shirton
chris mccabe <glow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A33B4B5...@home.com...
> for me, it's a (gasp) faith thing. let me ask you
> this--why would you NOT want to become a god? think
> about it--if God created all the universe, and
> everything in it, created all of us, and gave us
> life . . . why would you not want to become a god
> youself?
That's really the big difference, isn't it? The difference between LDS and
orthodox Christians is that our faith and our beliefs aren't based on "what
do we want?", but rather on "what has God revealed to us"?
Genesis 2 & 3 tell me that God doesn't want us to become "gods". Also:
Rom 9:20 But who indeed are you, a human being, to
talk back to God? Will what is made say to
its maker,"Why have you created me so?"
God speaks of His elect in two different ways, as "children" of God, and as
creations of a Creator. We are only "children" of God in an *adopted* sense
(Rom. 8:15,23, Gal. 4:5, Eph. 1:5). But in terms of "species", we are
*creations* of God. This is where analogy of the Potter and the clay comes
in. Can clay ever become a Potter? No! At best, a Potter can take clay
and make an image of Himself, as God did when He made man in His image. But
a lump of clay will never become a potter. Just as a sheep will never
become a shepherd.
Phi 2:5 Have among yourselves the same attitude that
is also yours in Christ Jesus,
Phi 2:6 Who, though he was in the form of God, did
not regard equality with God something to
be grasped.
And this is the Key: If Jesus, the *ONLY* begotten Son of God, did not
regard equality with God something to be grasped, HOW MUCH MORE SO should
we, created beings, born in sin, should we not strive to reach out and grasp
"equality with God"?!
And in all seriousness, and all sincerity, and with due respect, the thing
about the LDS theology that is I think the most offensive to non-LDS
Christians, is the idea that puts God and man on the same level, that one
can become the other. The mere idea that you can pull God down to the level
of man, with your "As man is, God once was" theology, is absolutely
sickening to those of us who love God. I don't know if you can understand
that, but there it is.
> chris mccabe
Jeff Shirton
Jeff Shirton
> tabitha <tabi...@valueweb.net> wrote:
> > how about Jesus of Nazareth (in John 10)
> > quoting Ps. 82:6?
> >
> > Ps. 82:6
> > 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are
> > children of the most High.
Context is truly a wonderful thing:
Psa 82:1 A psalm of Asaph. (1) God rises in the
divine council, gives judgment in the midst
of the gods.
Psa 82:2 "How long will you judge unjustly and favor
the cause of the wicked? Selah
Psa 82:3 Defend the lowly and fatherless; render
justice to the afflicted and needy.
Psa 82:4 Rescue the lowly and poor; deliver them
from the hand of the wicked."
Psa 82:5 (2) The gods neither know nor understand,
wandering about in darkness, and all the
world's foundations shake.
Psa 82:6 I declare: "Gods though you be, offspring
of the Most High all of you,
Psa 82:7 Yet like any mortal you shall die; like
any prince you shall fall."
Psa 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth, for yours
are all the nations.
I have seen many a Mormon quote 82:6 out of context, but I have yet to see
one actually explain it in the context of the entire psalm. So what say ye,
LDS?
1) Who exactly are the "Gods" spoken of in v.6?
2) In what way are they "Gods"?
3) What does v. 7 have to say about these "Gods"?
4) Does this reference to "Gods" sound like a good
or positive description?
5) Is the true God of the Bible, compared to, or
contrasted with, these other "Gods"? (Are they alike
or are they different?)
> > --tabitha--
> Ms. Tabitha, congratulations, you have effectively
> answered the questions. (How's the baby?) The Old Man
Taking verses out of context is being "effective"?
Interesting.
Jeff Shirton
Saattya
Someone who speaks a good revealing argument about the topic of discussion
that doesen't set well with the mind or sweet to the tongue...
--
Spiritual Library, Read books online, Art & Music collections
http://www.spiritualsky.net
"Reverend Phlegm" <Phl...@parsonage.com> wrote in message
news:3A32F9F1...@parsonage.com...
Saattya
> >
> >My question is this: Why do Mormon's believe they will become Gods?
>
> Because that's what the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, taught.
That's the best advertisement for recruitment I've ever heard from a
recruiter.
Do what I say and you'll be a God, can't beat that.
Now if I was a lil more selfish and a lil more naive I might just go for it
myself.
Adrian Parker
everything
> in it, created all of us, and gave us life . . . why would you not want to
> become a god youself?
I think that's the wrong reason to become a God. I think. It sounds too
much like the reason I'd give, and in all honesty I think it breaks down to
power absolute.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
> talk back to God? Will what is made say to
> its maker,"Why have you created me so?"
A superior at work once asked me what right I had to question their
authority. Now given more time on the subject, I am their equal. The
question they once asked, in the time frame, was appropriate. Now it is
not.
> Can clay ever become a Potter? No! At best, a Potter can take clay
> and make an image of Himself, as God did when He made man in His image.
But
> a lump of clay will never become a potter. Just as a sheep will never
> become a shepherd.
Can God make a mountain so large that even he can't lift it? If so, then he
can't be all powerful in that he can't do everything. If he can't, he's not
perfect in that he can't create such. God is God. If he wants us to be
Gods, it will happen. Godhood as I understand is infinite. He can do what
he wants. There is no measure of power and no restrictions are placed upon
him.
As God is perfect, and we are his creations, we must be perfect creations.
This isn't to suggest we're perfect, we're not, it's a suggestion at our
potential.
> And this is the Key: If Jesus, the *ONLY* begotten Son of God, did not
> regard equality with God something to be grasped, HOW MUCH MORE SO should
> we, created beings, born in sin, should we not strive to reach out and
grasp
> "equality with God"?!
1) I do not believe we are born in sin
2) Jesus is a God (according to more then one gospel)
3) Imitation is the highest form of flattery
> The mere idea that you can pull God down to the level
> of man, with your "As man is, God once was" theology, is absolutely
> sickening to those of us who love God. I don't know if you can understand
> that, but there it is.
That is vile. The LDS, as I understand it, wish to become like God, not
vice versa. They wish to one day to be exalted, they don't expect God to
meet with limitations.
I work for a professional photographer. I one day to be like him. I don't
expect him to get worse, I expect to achieve his level of skill.
Sincerely,
Adrian
Adrian Parker
the
> best posted answers to a question of this magnitude that i've read in a
long
> time.
There is a very good reason, and at the same time it's a very bad one.
Let me tell you about yourself first. My name is Adrian Parker, although
oft I think I have another name that others would better know me by. That's
an odd sensation, and I can't really explain it any better as I myself don't
understand. A God exists, I know this for certain. I pray, perhaps not as
frequently as I should though. I try to live my life in a way as to not
harm others. A missionary friend of mine, serving in South Surrey BC, tells
me I'm a dry Mormon. That is to say I follow the edicts [don't smoke, don't
drink, don't drink coffee etc]. Seeing disappoint in others really hurts
me. I want the world to be a better place. I've even taken measures
through prayer to help change such [at my own expense]. For years I've told
people I'm a very logical being, without emotion, without care. This is
wrong though. I grew up an outcast. Never really fitting into social or
sporting groups. This perhaps kept me from being apart of the in-crowd, but
it certainly didn't make me antisocial, and it certainly didn't remove my
emotions or ties to humanity. One on one I think most people would find me
to be exceedingly polite and helpful. I'm not sure though. I would call
myself an altruist, but I try not to be so vain.
So you've gotten this far? Already you're a better "man" [use as impersonal
pronoun please] than I. The church, the building one attends, is a very
social place. There is singing and friendship, and open praise. I have
trouble with many of these. Many of these situations make me exceedingly
uncomfortable. It's not so much that I particularily mind any of these,
what bothers me is being judged by others. I know I shouldn't worry about
such things. Other's opinions, and imagined opinions, just REALLY bother me
is all. In real life anyway, for most but not all topics. So as for your
question, I'm not really sure how to answer. I want to go, and I have been
to the church before. I had attended for some months years passed, and just
last night I was there for the Christmas party. I like speaking to the
missionaries, and learning new and interesting things from revelations and
prophecy. Perhaps I have some silly belief that I can believe in God and
truly be faithful without actually sitting one day a week in a man-made
building. How vain of me to directly oppose the teachings of the BoM I can
hear you say.
So I quietly worship from home. Does this make me any less faithful, I
don't think so. Does it make me less "religious", probably, but the
judgement of other men hardly defines my spirituality anyway.
Why do I not join? I will tell you it's because I can't. Others would
likely tell you it's just an excuse. In the end I can't really give you a
definitive answer. Almost makes you wonder why you bothered reading all the
way to here doesn't it? Just the same, thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Adrian
Ldzion
>My question is this: Whay do Mormon's believe they will become Gods?
Gods are those who continue to lay down their lives and take them again.
Christ said that no man takes his life away from him and that he had power to
lay it down and power to take it again.
John 10:18
Christ said that he would also ascend up to where he was before. John 6.
When men are exalted to the continuation of the seeds of life both in the
world and out of the world they must continue in both the physical and
spiritual worlds to increase those seeds of life and hence they are as the
Gods. These are above the angels because the angels must serve them as they
help to continue the works of the Father. (LDS believe in D&C 132:30-31)
Now there are only three who are God from all eternity. The Father, Son, and
the Holy Ghost. But there are many lesser gods as it were who coninue the seeds
both in the world and out of the world. God Almighty does not procreate and has
no wife. No female consort exists who is partner with God, who only creates by
the word of his power. We are his children when we obey his commandments
First, to come out of the eternal light and recieve an independent sphere of
existence. This organization of intelligence was just before the great war in
heaven where the devil and his angels were cast out.
Second, when we accept the gospel of the Only Begotten and conintue to the next
stage where we are added upon with a spirit body to contain our intelligence.
this is where we are assigned to a world where exalted parents await to recieve
us to the spiritualy bodies they are commanded to increase and multiply.
Genesis 1:28
Then we come into this physical world and IF we obey the gospel here we are
born again of fire and of the Holy Ghost and BECOME the children of God.
Lastly in the resurrection we become again the children of God as we rise up to
our several inheritances whether of one glory or another.
Those who have overcome and recieved all that the Father hath are raised up in
a married state precisely as were Adam and Eve in the creation scriptures and
given a world where they are commanded to fill it with their seed. When this is
done they continue as outlined in the creation scriptures to enter a garden (
See Genesis 2:15) for a little R&R and eventually fall into the physical world
which is intended of God although not commanded of him. Then the woman has here
seed replenished and multiplied as they are cast out into the lone and dreary
world to bring forth the physical bodies of mankind. They submit to the Only
Begotten and are raised again to there former glory and begin again to add
exaltation to exaltation and glory to glory.
Why is this such a difficult thought for people to get? Eve had seed and was
commanded to multiply which was all first spiritual in heaven before it was
upon the earth and when she found herself in the garden later she needed to
have here seed replenished and multiplied. There were perhaps billions of years
between the two events. The earth was here under the spritiual world undergoing
its long geological and ecodynamic history preparing all things (fossil fuels)
then an extinction so that a new order can begin with man being placed into the
garden and so on.
Many LDS fancy too much from this to imagine that they equal the Almighty God.
For this strong delusion they will be condemned for they did not recieve the
love of the truth but turned unto fables.
LDS leadership has been inept and unwilling to resolve controversies like this
because they are befuddled and confused.
In arrogance they continue THEIR steady course which is obviously all they
really care about.
James of Zion
Jeff Shirton
Adrian Parker <adrian...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:kyRY5.70039$2A2.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Rom 9:20 But who indeed are you, a human being, to
> > talk back to God? Will what is made say to
> > its maker,"Why have you created me so?"
>
> A superior at work once asked me what right I had to
> question their authority. Now given more time on
> the subject, I am their equal. The question they
> once asked, in the time frame, was appropriate.
> Now it is not.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Adrian. I understand LDS theology all too well.
But the flaw in your analogy is that your superior at work did not *create*
you. God created man, as the Potter created the clay pots.
> Can God make a mountain so large that even he can't
> lift it? If so, then he can't be all powerful in
> that he can't do everything. If he can't, he's not
> perfect in that he can't create such.
So are you trying to disprove God for the both of us?
What exactly is your point, here?
Nobody is questioning God's *ability* to do something, what is at issue is
His *will*.
If there's any "ability" issue here, its in our *inability* to become gods.
It's the clay pot's inability to become a potter.
> God is God. If he wants us to be Gods, it will happen.
Oh I have no doubt. But I also know that He *doesn't* want us to be gods.
It's been that way since Eden. It's not God that wants us to be gods like
him, it's men like the LDS who want to be gods.
> As God is perfect, and we are his creations, we must
> be perfect creations. This isn't to suggest we're
> perfect, we're not, it's a suggestion at our
> potential.
A fruitfly doesn't have the "potential" to be a hawk.
A clay pot doesn't have the "potential" to become a Potter.
A sheep doesn't have the "potential" to become a Shepherd.
And a human doesn't have the "potential" to become God (unless, of course,
He already was in the first place).
> 1) I do not believe we are born in sin
When did you acquire the sinful nature, then?
> > The mere idea that you can pull God down to the level
> > of man, with your "As man is, God once was" theology,
> > is absolutely sickening to those of us who love God.
> > I don't know if you can understand that, but there
> > it is.
>
> That is vile. The LDS, as I understand it, wish to
> become like God, not vice versa.
Do you know those "Baby on Board" signs? I really hate them. What is their
purpose? Is it to say, "please drive more carefully around me, I have a
baby in my car?" Does that mean I drive any *less* carefully, or that I
*should* drive any less carefully, if there's no "baby on board"? Most
users of that sign would say, "oh, of course not!"
But there it is anyway. How can I drive "more" carefully around someone,
unless I drive "less" carefully around someone else?
And in the same way, What's the difference between pulling man up to God's
level, and pulling man down to God's level? The only difference is the
frame of reference, and whichever way you look at it from, the end result is
putting God and man on the same level.
> I work for a professional photographer. I one day to
> be like him. I don't expect him to get worse, I expect
> to achieve his level of skill.
Once again, I understand the concept of exaltation. But once again, did
your photographer boss *create* you (not just your photography skills, but
your entire being)? It's a terribly flawed analogy.
> Adrian
Jeff Shirton
Martyn O'Connor
Jesus hated them.
"Adrian Parker" <adrian...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:E6SY5.70153$2A2.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Martyn O'Connor
become Gods, or fly away to other planets and rule them with spirit wives or
anything like that, Mormons are run like Microsoft with lovely external
images hiding the purely business like attitude underneath. Obey the
doctrine and become a God, I am stunned that so many people believe that.
It's a joke... NO
Hold on a second.... I've been told by God that I am the resurrected Joseph
Smith, all faithful Morons must follow me if they want to become Gods...
Yes, believe that you naive idiots.
"Stephen Skinner" <ski...@grn.mmtr.or.jp> wrote in message
news:3a331cf5$0$90566$45be...@newscene.com...
Adrian Parker
> But the flaw in your analogy is that your superior at work did not
*create*
> you. God created man, as the Potter created the clay pots.
Clay pots are not capable of learning or creativity. The analogy is flawed.
> So are you trying to disprove God for the both of us?
> What exactly is your point, here?
> Nobody is questioning God's *ability* to do something, what is at issue is
> His *will*.
Didn't think you'd catch it. If God wants to create something which in turn
has the potential for Godhood, he can.
> > God is God. If he wants us to be Gods, it will happen.
>
> Oh I have no doubt. But I also know that He *doesn't* want us to be gods.
> It's been that way since Eden. It's not God that wants us to be gods like
> him, it's men like the LDS who want to be gods.
I see. Your arguements made it sound like we're not able to become Gods
(hence the pottery issue).
> A fruitfly doesn't have the "potential" to be a hawk.
> A clay pot doesn't have the "potential" to become a Potter.
> A sheep doesn't have the "potential" to become a Shepherd.
> And a human doesn't have the "potential" to become God (unless, of course,
> He already was in the first place).
I believe God was once mortal. Your points are moot.
> When did you acquire the sinful nature, then?
I'd say temptation. All things can choose. They don't know to choose evil
until it's presented.
> Do you know those "Baby on Board" signs? I really hate them. What is
their
> purpose? Is it to say, "please drive more carefully around me, I have a
> baby in my car?" Does that mean I drive any *less* carefully, or that I
> *should* drive any less carefully, if there's no "baby on board"? Most
> users of that sign would say, "oh, of course not!"
Possibly in case of accidents they let support staff know their is a special
case in the back. Much like those signs you get for home windows which
designate a windows as that of a children's room. They're not their to ask
the fire to burn elsewhere...
> But there it is anyway. How can I drive "more" carefully around someone,
> unless I drive "less" carefully around someone else?
Personally I pay too little attention while driving most of the time, but
actively concentrate in places like school zones. I don't intentionally
drive badly in other locations, I'm just not actively thinking about driving
carefully.
> And in the same way, What's the difference between pulling man up to God's
> level, and pulling man down to God's level? The only difference is the
> frame of reference, and whichever way you look at it from, the end result
is
> putting God and man on the same level.
Because once mortals get to God's level they are Gods, not mortals. A
mortal cannot achieve God-like level. Through Exaltation via the glory of
God mortals can be elevated to said level.
Is my view anyway.
> Once again, I understand the concept of exaltation. But once again, did
> your photographer boss *create* you (not just your photography skills, but
> your entire being)? It's a terribly flawed analogy.
My father created me (physically). He rides motorcyles, and was two year
British superbike champion. I wish to be able to ride as well as he. Is
this impossible because he's my creator?
Adrian
Adrian Parker
>
> Jesus hated them.
Most interesting. I tend to be hard on myself though. Always thinking I
could have done better, even if it's not expected of me.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
Was that man perfect? If not your knowledge is flawed. If so, please tell
me what it means to be perfect. Even if it was done so under the guidance
of God directly, has it been translated perfectly through varying
translations? Even if it has been translated perfectly, are you certain you
are reading it perfectly [taking metaphors and fact for just that?]. This
posting is but a few lines long and already I bet you have misunderstood
both my intention and the manner in which I say these things unto you.
There is only one way to know the truth, the real truth. If you are unable
to choose that path, you're not worthy to teach us the gospel anyway.
If you haven't taken this response has hostile, done out of anger, or even
as a way to belittle you, you may wish to reconsider what you "know" about
the Bible because you are most certainly wrong about why I write these
things. A harsh point perhaps, but it'll only serve to help you in the end.
Sincerely,
Adrian
Reverend Phlegm
Adrian Parker wrote:
> 0
> Sincerely,
> Adrian
Adrian, I, like you, am so uncomfortable in public meetings. I also have been
told all my life that I am not spiritual because I have trouble sitting in a
chair for an hour or two hemmed in by a bunch of people. <sigh> Some day the
Lord will judge us all according to what is in our hearts, not where we park our
big pimply butts on Sunday morning.
Reverend Phlegm
Adrian Parker wrote:
> My father created me (physically). He rides motorcyles, and was two year
> British superbike champion. I wish to be able to ride as well as he. Is
> this impossible because he's my creator?
>
> Adrian
He is not your creator (ya big dope <grin>) He is your progenitor. My cat does
not *create* kittens either.
Jeff Shirton
> > you. God created man, as the Potter created the clay pots.
>
> Clay pots are not capable of learning or creativity.
> The analogy is flawed.
Any analogy, by definition, is flawed. A "perfect" analogy would be the
thing itself.
But the point is that the aspect of our relationship with God which became
the purpose of this analogy, was God's relationship with man. Were we his
sons and daughters, or were we His creations. And for that dimension, I
think the analogy works very well.
> I believe God was once mortal. Your points are moot.
Your friend was right. You *are* a "dry Mormon". <g>
> > When did you acquire the sinful nature, then?
>
> I'd say temptation. All things can choose. They
> don't know to choose evil until it's presented.
That doesn't answer "when". I've seen 2-year-old children who I know knew
right from wrong, and tempted, chose wrong.
So trying to understand your answer, are you saying that only after the
first time we've been tempted, and choose wrongly, that we only then become
sinful?
If we don't start out sinful, why do we make wrong choices to begin with?
> Because once mortals get to God's level they are Gods,
> not mortals. A mortal cannot achieve God-like level.
> Through Exaltation via the glory of
> God mortals can be elevated to said level.
I guess this may just be too difficult to explain.
But I'll try once more anyway. The concept of exaltation is like thinking
man was once a cockroach, and was "exalted" to the level of man. While this
looks very good to the cockroach, it really doesn't say much about man.
> My father created me (physically). He rides motorcyles,
> and was two year British superbike champion. I wish to
> be able to ride as well as he. Is this impossible
> because he's my creator?
As was already pointed out by someone else, your earthly father is not your
"creator". He didn't create you, he begat you. But this leads us back to
the potter-clay analogy. There's the potter, the potter's son, and the
potter's clay pots. God is the Potter. Jesus is His Son, and we are simply
a bunch of created beings.
What does the potter-clay analogy mean to you?
> Adrian
Jeff Shirton
Adrian Parker
willing and concious matter, just the same the animals reproductive organs
are still that under control of the given animals brain. Perhaps not a
spiritual creator, but I never said that.
For that matter, the Bible does not say how exactly God creates man.
Perhaps God gave "birth" to spirituality much as humans give birth to young.
Who's to say? I don't think it really matters. We did not exist, we now do
exist. The process is irrelevant, and likely beyond human comprehension
anyway.
Adrian
"Reverend Phlegm" <Phl...@parsonage.com> wrote in message
news:3A342B83...@parsonage.com...
Adrian Parker
been
> told all my life that I am not spiritual because I have trouble sitting in
a
> chair for an hour or two hemmed in by a bunch of people. <sigh> Some day
the
> Lord will judge us all according to what is in our hearts, not where we
park our
> big pimply butts on Sunday morning.
It's a comforting thought at any rate. I mean if I thought I'd be judged by
another's standards I'd likely give up now. No matter how good you are,
there's always somebody better. It's a bit humbling, and more then a little
scary.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
> thing itself.
You may want to look up the definition of analagy. A perfect one would be
the one that best describes the situation. Remember an analagy is an
exterior example, to be a perfect analagy just means it has to represent the
topic perfectly (not be the topic).
> That doesn't answer "when". I've seen 2-year-old children who I know knew
> right from wrong, and tempted, chose wrong.
Have you? From what little I know, most psychologists would disagree with
you. At any rate my answer stands. You don't know sin until you have
sinned. You can't be born with sin because you have done nothing wrong
[unless you've read inherit the wind one too may times and being "begotten"
disturbs you].
> So trying to understand your answer, are you saying that only after the
> first time we've been tempted, and choose wrongly, that we only then
become
> sinful?
He said were born with sin, not the ability to sin. You have changed the
topic [most likely unknowningly].
> If we don't start out sinful, why do we make wrong choices to begin with?
I don't drink today, and I have no need to. That doesn't mean "tomorrow" I
won't take up such a bad habit.
> looks very good to the cockroach, it really doesn't say much about man.
I believe in Christian science. Again your example means nothing to me.
> What does the potter-clay analogy mean to you?
It means to me that you seem to think I for some reason believe inatimate
objects can think and make decisions. Humans can think and feel and
observe. We can evolve, and learn, and strive. Pots clay can't.
Adrian
Jeff Shirton
> > That doesn't answer "when". I've seen 2-year-old
> > children who I know knew
> > right from wrong, and tempted, chose wrong.
>
> Have you?
Yes, I have. And I've seen the little smug smile, showing he thinks he's
gotten away from something, after he does wrong.
> He said were born with sin, not the ability to sin.
> You have changed the topic [most likely unknowningly].
You could say that... I have absolutely no clue as to what difference you
could possibly mean between the two phrases.
> > If we don't start out sinful, why do we make wrong choices to begin
with?
>
> I don't drink today, and I have no need to. That
> doesn't mean "tomorrow" I won't take up such a bad habit.
But that doesn't really answer my question, "why?".
But I'm guessing it has to do with being "born in sin", which I'm not sure
what you mean by that.
On the surface, without explanation, it sounds like an oxymoron.
> > looks very good to the cockroach, it really doesn't say much about man.
>
> I believe in Christian science. Again your example
> means nothing to me.
So you're a pseudo-Mormon Christian scientist?! Wow!
> > What does the potter-clay analogy mean to you?
>
> It means to me that you seem to think I for some
> reason believe inatimate objects can think and make
> decisions. Humans can think and feel and observe.
I'm not asking you what you think *I* think about you.
I'm asking what *you* think about this Biblical analogy.
Really, it's not that difficult a question.
Sorry for being pedantic, but maybe we can break it down into steps:
1) Do you believe the Bible?
2) Do you agree that the Bible uses a Potter-clay analogy?
(Isa. 29:16, 41:25, 64:8, Jer. 18:6, Rom. 9:21)
3) What do *you* think these passages are supposed to mean?
> We can evolve, and learn, and strive. Pots clay can't.
So what are you saying?
That God used a poor analogy?
That God was trying to tell us something else?
> Adrian
Jeff Shirton
Adrian Parker
> > You have changed the topic [most likely unknowningly].
>
> You could say that... I have absolutely no clue as to what difference you
> could possibly mean between the two phrases.
Born with sin: You have previously sinned, you have already done wrong and
should be punished.
Ability to sin: You have no yet done anything wrong, but you are able to.
Example:
T. Buny is a killer. He has killed and murdered people.
I have the ability to kill. I have not killed anyone [and never will],
however I am physically capable of doing such a thing.
> > > looks very good to the cockroach, it really doesn't say much about
man.
> >
> > I believe in Christian science. Again your example
> > means nothing to me.
>
> So you're a pseudo-Mormon Christian scientist?! Wow!
Mormonism (or any religion title), is just that, a title. I do what I feel
is right, what my moral compass tells me is correct.
> I'm not asking you what you think *I* think about you.
> I'm asking what *you* think about this Biblical analogy.
I think it's flawed. Clay is incapable of striving or learning. Humans can
do both, hence there is no reason one can't evolve.
> That God was trying to tell us something else?
The problem with translation is that it *cannot* be done perfectly. There
are just some words which have no translation.
I take some of what I read as metaphor, and some of what I read as fact.
How do I choose you may ask? Reason and prayer, and you can't go wrong with
the latter.
Adrian
Jeff Shirton
I'm not sure what's going on here. Maybe you simply don't want to answer
the question. If that's the case, please say so, and I'll stop asking.
> > I'm asking what *you* think about this Biblical analogy.
>
> I think it's flawed.
Is it the Bible that's flawed, or just the translation?
(I'm still asking you if you believe the Bible or not, because in all
honesty I don't know, and I don't want to make a wrong assumption here.)
> > That God was trying to tell us something else?
>
> The problem with translation is that it *cannot* be
> done perfectly.
Okay, so you have a problem with the translation.
What exactly about the translation do you have a problem with? How do *you*
feel it should have been translated?
> There are just some words which have no translation.
Yes, but unless you have specific reasons, you could simply use this to
ignore anything the Bible said that you didn't really like.
> I take some of what I read as metaphor, and some of
> what I read as fact. How do I choose you may ask?
> Reason and prayer, and you can't go wrong with
> the latter.
Okay, so the potter-clay analogy, was it fact, or metaphor?
And what did it mean, whatever it was?
(And I'd be really surprised if anyone interpreted this analogy, or any
analogy, as "fact".)
> Adrian
Jeff Shirton
John Preston
new testament implications. When Jesus showed up he started refering to this
god guy as Father all the time. The minet you've got a father lounging
around up there [in stead of some kind of an inter galactic c.e.o.] then
there is this strong emplication that we are to take this Parent child/ god
man relationship and carry it to it's logical conclusion. Who do childern
grow up to be like? The whole thing's a led pipe synch it's just that J S
was the first guy rowdy enough to take it on the chin and say it. There are
other references like the one in Hebrew's that says '' and if childern then
why not hires.'' And'' all that me father has shall be your's'' and stuff
like that.
I say the burden of proof is now on the old Cathalic tradition that
wants to keep man properly subordinated and limited. At what point will the
loveing Father limet or stop the eternal progretion of his childern? A child
could tell ya . Father is not in the business of limiting anyone. We as
individuals limit our selves.
Reverend Phlegm
Adrian Parker wrote:
> In a physical sense she does [by definition if you will]. Not so much a
> willing and concious matter, just the same the animals reproductive organs
> are still that under control of the given animals brain. Perhaps not a
> spiritual creator, but I never said that.
>
> For that matter, the Bible does not say how exactly God creates man.
> Perhaps God gave "birth" to spirituality much as humans give birth to young.
> Who's to say? I don't think it really matters. We did not exist, we now do
> exist. The process is irrelevant, and likely beyond human comprehension
> anyway.
>
> Adrian
Adrian, to me, creating something involves planning--an act of *creativity*, if
you will. The idea of God going through a biological-- er, make that
"spiritualogical"-- process to bring progeny into existence is repugnant to me
and flies in the face of my entire concept of our omnipotent, omniscient, and
omnipresent God.
Jeff Shirton
John Preston <thet...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:911loo$eq4$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> To say that humans can become gods is a fairly logical
> extention of several new testament implications.
So "logical" that it went unknown for 1800 years?
> When Jesus showed up he started refering to this
> god guy as Father all the time.
Yep, and my friend Andrew kept referring to his dad as "Father" too, but
that didn't make him *my* father as well.
> The minet you've got a father lounging around up there
> [in stead of some kind of an inter galactic c.e.o.]
> then there is this strong emplication that we are to
> take this Parent child/ god man relationship and carry
> it to it's logical conclusion.
How do you figure?
> say it. There are other references like the one in
> Hebrew's that says '' and if childern then why not
> hires.'' And'' all that me father has shall be your's''
> and stuff like that.
In order to properly understand this, one must first understand the
relationship the Bible teaches between God and the Elect:
Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of
bondage again to fear; but ye have received
the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry,
Abba, Father.
Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that
we might receive the adoption of sons.
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of
children by Jesus Christ to himself, according
to the good pleasure of his will,
So to speak that inheritance means that men can become gods is as
nonsensical as saying a white child can become black simply because she is
adopted by black parents.
> At what point will the loveing Father limet or stop
> the eternal progretion of his childern? A child
> could tell ya . Father is not in the business of limiting
> anyone. We as individuals limit our selves.
Mormons must just *hate* these passages, for I have yet to see one actually
deal with them:
Isa 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down
shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for
shall the work say of him that made it, He
made me not? or shall the thing framed say
of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are
the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are
the work of thy hand.
Jer 18:6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as
this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the
clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye
in mine hand, O house of Israel.
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of
the same lump to make one vessel unto honour,
and another unto dishonour?
Jeff Shirton
The Old Man
"Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > tabitha <tabi...@valueweb.net> wrote:
Mr. Shirton, you may be aware that I am no fan of the Bible. I find it
strange that the author of the Psalms is held in such high esteem that
his words become scripture. Yet this same man betrayed the God most
believe in, as evidenced by the stories of punishment by God to this
man. Even to the point of killing this man new born baby. Strange.
However, my post was influenced somewhat by other scriptures in the
Bible that strongly suggest we are or will become gods.
John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are
gods?
Genesis 3:5
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes
shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Revelation 3:21
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne,
even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
(One must be a god to set down with Jesus on God’s throne, I would
think). (Also, to live in Heaven with streets paved with the royal
metal gold would suggest a special place fit for gods).
As for your questions, I can not comment one way or another for the
Bible is very poorly written as evidenced by the many religions that
claim it as their authority. I have yet to meet a Christian who has
not taken verses out of context . . .otherwise how can they support
their differences from one another? Who knows what gods the scriptures
were referring to? But the words do say, ye shall be gods! Tabitha
was right.
Course all of this is just speculation on my part, who really knows if
we will be gods, do you? However, I believe if one studies the Bible
one can make the case that it is possible to join the ranks of
godhood. The Old Man
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeff Shirton
The Old Man <the_o...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:911nvb$id4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Mr. Shirton, you may be aware that I am no fan of
> the Bible.
I'm curious as to why you're here, then...
> I find it strange that the author of the Psalms is
> held in such high esteem that his words become scripture. > Yet this same
man betrayed the God most believe in,
> as evidenced by the stories of punishment by God to this
> man. Even to the point of killing this man new born
> baby. Strange.
All men have betrayed God.
> However, my post was influenced somewhat by other scriptures in the
> Bible that strongly suggest we are or will become gods.
>
> John 10:34
> 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law,
> I said, Ye are gods?
Once again, this is a quote of Psalm 82, which I already quoted in full, and
instead of giving my own interpretation of the entire psalm in context,
asked others to interpret the whole thing. I believe you say below that
you're not going to do that, so I guess we're at an impasse here.
You say this strongly suggests that we can become gods, yet you apparently
refuse to study it in context.
> Genesis 3:5
> 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
> then your eyes
> shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing
> good and evil.
This doesn't say that they would become gods, but simply become *as* gods.
In what respect? Similar to God in that they too would know good and evil.
> Revelation 3:21
> 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with
> me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am
> set down with my Father in his throne.
> (One must be a god to set down with Jesus on God's
> throne, I would think). (Also, to live in Heaven
> with streets paved with the royal metal gold would
> suggest a special place fit for gods).
Both of these ideas are nothing more than assumptions on your part, which
isn't necessarily a bad thing, but one must keep in mind their relative
weight, related to things which are explicitly taught in Scripture.
Personally, I don't see how either one follows naturally, unless you have a
preconceived conclusion that man will become god, and you want support for
that.
> As for your questions, I can not comment one way
> or another for the Bible is very poorly written
If that is so, then what good is it, in your opinion?
> as evidenced by the many religions that
> claim it as their authority.
Sorry, I don't blame that on the Bible. I blame that on men.
> I have yet to meet a Christian who has
> not taken verses out of context . . .
That's a rather harsh accusation. The only way I could see someone being
able to justify such an accusation, is if they know the true meaning of all
the verses *in* context, and I would consider that an arrogant claim.
> otherwise how can they support
> their differences from one another?
There are many different ways. Literalism vs figurativism, degrees of
importance, wording, etc. Context only comes in if there is an explicit
context in the surrounding passages which dictates the interpretation of the
verse(s) in question. If there is no definitive context, or if differing
interpretations are not related directly to the context, then context is not
the source of the error.
> Who knows what gods the scriptures
> were referring to?
You mention many different sects of Christians with very different
theologies. However, the vast majority of them are united in the belief
that the Bible teaches that only one God exists, that being YHWH.
> But the words do say, ye shall be gods! Tabitha
> was right.
You say this, yet you refuse to study the context of the entire Psalm (86),
which in fact tells you "what gods the scriptures were referring to".
> Course all of this is just speculation on my part,
> who really knows if we will be gods, do you?
Well, since you asked... Yes, I do know.
> However, I believe if one studies the Bible
> one can make the case that it is possible to join
> the ranks of godhood. The Old Man
Yet you apparently refuse to do just that!
Care to change your mind, and study Psalm 82 with me?
(or with anyone else?)
Jeff Shirton
PatentWorm
Martyn O'Connor <mar...@letigre.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:90uega$5c9$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Please please please answer with actual evidence, the following question.
I
> have been trying to get an answer from a Mormon for quite some time, and
all
> my efforts have amounted to have been one of two things:
>
> 1) The Mormon stops talking to me.
>
> 2) The Mormon calls me a son of Satan then stops talking to me.
>
>
>
Whay not?
PatentWorm
Evolution.
PatentWorm
Tyler Waite <twa...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:90v1ti$fao$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu...news:90urnt$egr$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > You take the sayso of man? I'd be very wary of basing my own salvation
on
> > the sayso of a man. Regardless of who he was or what he did, he was a
man,
> > and God is a God, more powerful than any man.
that man call himself prophet, apostle or priest, he is
> still a man. Where are your words from God that were not given to you
through a man? You cannot even claim that Christ gave you
> any instruction because even his 'words' come to you through the writings
of a man and most of the new testament is not even from
> the men who were his contemporaries, or the men he personally chose as his
apostles. So what is the basis that you have for feeling
> you are on firmer theological ground than the mormons? I can understand
why your mormon friend has stopped talking to you.
>
The TPB (true protestant believers) forget that men wrote the entirety of
the Bible. They even have the odacity to say that "God wrote the Bible"
even though I don't see on book called the "Book of God".
Adrian Parker
*creativity*, if
> you will. The idea of God going through a biological-- er, make that
> "spiritualogical"-- process to bring progeny into existence is repugnant
to me
> and flies in the face of my entire concept of our omnipotent, omniscient,
and
> omnipresent God.
On the other hand I find it a bit silly that God would wave his magic wand
and we would just be.
It's rather irrelevant how he created us anyway, it's not even the topic.
Besides, creation is likely something beyond our comprehension even if
explained to us God himself.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
> the question. If that's the case, please say so, and I'll stop asking.
You said you didn't know what the difference was by being born with sin, or
being born sinful.
It's a matter of previously having sinned [ie: You've done wrong], or being
born with the potential to sin [which doesn't mean you'll ever sin].
I can't make it any clearer. I'm sorry.
> Is it the Bible that's flawed, or just the translation?
I have a hard time with the Bible as it's old English. I see a person read
a passage and get one thing out of it, and another reads it and gets
something else out of the same passage.
To me it's a matter of the morality and ethicality [is that a word?] it
teaches, not about specific details of what specific group of people fled
what land at what time.
> Okay, so you have a problem with the translation.
> What exactly about the translation do you have a problem with? How do
*you*
> feel it should have been translated?
If I knew that....
I think if it was written through divine intervention of any sort, then it
would essentially be perfect. That is to say it would be plainly
understandable to people of all ages. As it was written by man, mistakes
are sure to crop up.
Even silly things. Let's see. The creation, six days long right? When was
the sun created, not the first day correct? So how long was that first day?
Was it a 24 hour day? Or perhaps it wasn't a day as we know it, as there
was no sun. Could that first day have been 6 million days (24hours * 6
million) long? And if the latter is true, does everyone reference
thereafter in the Bible refer to days as we know them, or how I have shown
them?
And of course there are contradicitions. Many people thrive on finding
them. How can contradicting statements both be correct? Are both wrong?
> > There are just some words which have no translation.
>
> Yes, but unless you have specific reasons, you could simply use this to
> ignore anything the Bible said that you didn't really like.
I have my own morale compass, it's quite strong, exceedingly so. I would
sooner follow it then any written word. And I pray, just like you and the
others. I know I'm right.
> Okay, so the potter-clay analogy, was it fact, or metaphor?
> And what did it mean, whatever it was?
You would have to allow me to read it over. If it's an anallagy, it's just
that. Not necessarily perfect. I was asked about clay evolving, which we
know it can't do. In that I gave it, in relation to men being exalted, a
bad word. But after all it was only intended as an analogy to begin with.
Allow me to read it over before I give my own conclusive thoughts on it
though.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
> 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes
> shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
> were referring to? But the words do say, ye shall be gods! Tabitha
> was right.
Actually it says [you quoted it yourself], "and ye shall be as gods". As
Gods in that you know good from evil, not that you will become all powerful,
omnipotent etc
I, Adrian, shall become my father in that I will father children. This
doesn't mean I will change into my father :-)
Adrian
Jeff Shirton
> > I'm not sure what's going on here. Maybe you simply
> > don't want to answer the question. If that's the
> > case, please say so, and I'll stop asking.
>
> You said you didn't know what the difference was by
> being born with sin, or being born sinful.
I had also asked you what your interpretation of the potter-clay analogy
was, and you didn't answer. At that point, I then asked you if you believed
the Bible to be true, which again you did not answer. That was what I was
referring to, not the "with sin" vs. "sinful" distinction. That I
understood.
So you tell me that you need time to read it over, first. Fair enough.
> I can't make it any clearer. I'm sorry.
That's okay. It was clear enough the first time.
So my follow-up question to that, is why do we sin the first time? If we're
not sinful by nature, why can we not simply choose to remain sinless?
> > Is it the Bible that's flawed, or just the translation?
>
> I have a hard time with the Bible as it's old English.
The Bible has been, and will continue to be, written in many languages. The
"original" Bible, if we can talk of such things, was written in Hebrew,
Koine, and with a little Aramaic thrown in. The Bible has been translated
into latin, English in King James' day, and modern english with many good
translations, namely the NIV, RSV, NASB, and many others. And this is not
to leave out that it has been translated into many other native languages,
such as French, Spanish, Italian, Russian, and we can go on and on.
If you don't have the resources to buy a modern english version yourself,
you might consider contacting the Gideon Society. Last I checked, the New
Testaments they were handing out were in the New American Standard Bible
version.
> I see a person read a passage and get one thing out of
> it, and another reads it and gets something else out
> of the same passage.
I don't see this as a flaw in the Bible, but rather in the flaws of man.
Either they are reading the Bible in a language they can't understand (such
as Middle English), or they bring preconceived ideas in, such as from an
established church, and try to make the Bible fit those preconceived ideas.
I don't think it's possible to write *anything* that is "so clear", that
some people won't still find different interpretations of it, due to
different motives.
> > Okay, so you have a problem with the translation.
> > What exactly about the translation do you have a
> > problem with? How do *you*
> > feel it should have been translated?
>
> If I knew that....
Ironically, that's one of the big things I find wrong with the LDS church.
They claim that the Bible was translated wrong, or that there are "errors in
translation", without any knowledge or objective evidence on the mattter,
and this leads to discounting the Bible into a secondary role, under the
"Mormon Scriptures". I may likely get a lot of flack for saying that, but
my experience has found that to be true, in long, trusting discussions with
Mormons who at first also claimed that they didn't do it, but after push
came to shove, so to speak, they had to admit that they had.
> Even silly things. Let's see. The creation, six
> days long right? When was the sun created, not the
> first day correct? So how long was that first day?
> Was it a 24 hour day? Or perhaps it wasn't a day as
> we know it, as there was no sun. Could that first
> day have been 6 million days (24hours * 6 million)
> long? And if the latter is true, does everyone
> reference thereafter in the Bible refer to days as
> we know them, or how I have shown them?
Which leads to another problem I see in the LDS church. There seems to be
some expectation, no some *demand*, that the Scriptures be completely
understandable. Why do you consider the above to be an issue? Even you say
that it's "silly". So why is it important how many hours were in that first
day? It really has nothing whatsoever to do with our eternal salvation.
LDS seem to forget what Paul said:
1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but
then face to face: now I know in part; but
then shall I know even as also I am known.
(darkly: Gr. in a riddle)
Paul says that in this life, we're not going to know, or understand
everything. But the LDS view (implied, if not stated outright) is that if
it's not fully understandable, then it's not from God.
> And of course there are contradicitions. Many people
> thrive on finding them. How can contradicting
> statements both be correct? Are both wrong?
Am sorry if you feel these lists of alleged "contradictions" are a stumbling
block. In fact, some of these very "contradictions" are due to translation
errors, which is a testament to the integrity of the translators. They
*could* have removed them arbitrarily, but they wanted to stay true to the
word of God. These translation error "contradictions" have now been sorted
out and resolved with more accurate manuscript fragments.
> I have my own morale compass, it's quite strong,
> exceedingly so. I would sooner follow it then any
> written word.
Some of us find more confidence when following prayer *and* the written
word, knowing we're on sure ground when they are in agreement.
> And I pray, just like you and the
> others. I know I'm right.
The problem I find with prayer alone, is it leads to many different
worldwide beliefs, all by people who "know they're right."
> > Okay, so the potter-clay analogy, was it fact,
> > or metaphor? And what did it mean, whatever it was?
>
> You would have to allow me to read it over. If it's
> an anallagy, it's just that. Not necessarily perfect.
But certainly, it should be adequate with regards to what it was intended to
describe, right?
(But I'd rather you not comment further until you've had time to study the
passages. The above sort of sounds like you're trying to discount the
passage before you even read it.)
> I was asked about clay evolving,
Who asked you about that?
> which we know it can't do. In that I gave it, in
> relation to men being exalted, a bad word.
But I think you'll find that the analogy was never given, "in relation to
men being exalted."
In fact, it's a little unnerving that you seem to be assuming exaltation a
priori.
> Adrian
Jeff Shirton
John Manning
Reverend Phlegm wrote:
>
> Martyn O'Connor wrote:
>
> > You take the sayso of man? I'd be very wary of basing my own salvation on
> > the sayso of a man. Regardless of who he was or what he did, he was a man,
> > and God is a God, more powerful than any man. To me it seems like one day
> > Joseph Smith said, "Hmm, I think if we stay faithful to God, we will one day
> > have our own planet and be a God over that. Yes, that sounds good.", and
> > suddenly it became doctrine.
> > In my church, any man professing he would one day be a God himself would be
> > kicked out/handed over to the authorities. Let me know (and I am seriously
> > enquiring), what convinced you this is th truth.
>
> I think Martyn is a troll... What do y'all think? ;-)
I think you are a typical Mormo cretin and have expressed yourself as
such. Your delightsome white (pure) expression from the Mormo version of
the Holy Ghost speaks for itself.
I'll bet you'd like to get some of that sex that Joe Smith got
regularly. Well, just pay your money to get into the 'Temple of God',
don't take off those magic underpants, remember your 'secret'
handshakes, be sure to insult people that ask difficult questions, lie
down with dogs - and you'll have all the sex you want in Mormoland
heaven with your extra wives. Joe Smith will be there to greet you and
show you the easy lays. (You'll have to work on the tougher ones
yourself - kind of like a dog.) Then you will become God of a planet,
even though you can barely spell and know little about DNA except what
you heard in the O.J. Simpson case. Surely you'll be a wonderful GOD,
eh? Holiness to the Lord Phlegm - a true example of Mormo, er, Christ!
Don't worry, you'll make a great GOD! Just pretend to be nice once in a
while and you'll have your own creation and all the sex you want in no
time.
John Manning
Adrian Parker
> was, and you didn't answer.
I'd have to know the verse, study the context, and talk it over with
missionaries and the like before being able to answer.
> So my follow-up question to that, is why do we sin the first time? If
we're
> not sinful by nature, why can we not simply choose to remain sinless?
Temptation. Why do non-smokers smoke? Are we born with a pre-disposition
to smoke?
> If you don't have the resources to buy a modern english version yourself,
> you might consider contacting the Gideon Society. Last I checked, the New
> Testaments they were handing out were in the New American Standard Bible
> version.
Actually I have a Gideon Bible. I have no read it in some time, but is it
also not old English?
> I don't see this as a flaw in the Bible, but rather in the flaws of man.
I claimed it as a flaw in using the Bible for source, not a flaw in the
Bible itself.
> Why do you consider the above to be an issue? Even you say
> that it's "silly". So why is it important how many hours were in that
first
> day? It really has nothing whatsoever to do with our eternal salvation.
Because if we can't understand the most simple of text ("day"), why do we
assume to understand the most complex of metaphor? I've seen people quote
stuff in this thread and pass it off as proof to one thing. When I read the
same passage I haven't a clue how they get out of it what they had.
> Am sorry if you feel these lists of alleged "contradictions" are a
stumbling
> block. In fact, some of these very "contradictions" are due to
translation
> errors, which is a testament to the integrity of the translators.
Which is fine. But if we're willing to admit there are translation problems
in one spot, how do we know they are not in another? What can we trust?
> The problem I find with prayer alone, is it leads to many different
> worldwide beliefs, all by people who "know they're right."
Who's to say any of them are wrong? I once asked someone in the church (not
necessarily Mormon) if God had a favourite colour. They said it's possible,
but they obviously didn't know. If he had, I said, and his favourite was
blue, does that mean blue is better than all other colours? Of course not
was the answer. So, naturally, I reasked if perfection was truly a signle
path, or in some issues could their indeed be more then one correct path.
> But certainly, it should be adequate with regards to what it was intended
to
> describe, right?
For the time period that it was given, yes. In today's society it may mean
nothing. You yourself pointed out a similal problem with the concept of a
"perfectly clear translation".
> (But I'd rather you not comment further until you've had time to study the
> passages. The above sort of sounds like you're trying to discount the
> passage before you even read it.)
Humans can strive to be something they are not. Clay just *is*. It cannot
strive. So how can the analogy be even sensible let alone anything else?
> Who asked you about that?
Man evolving into God was likened to clay evolving into a potter. That is
what I got out of it anyway [a lie actually, the written verse is
nonsensicle to me].
> But I think you'll find that the analogy was never given, "in relation to
> men being exalted."
Someone suggested it with the whole anti-Exaltation thing.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
> such. Your delightsome white (pure) expression from the Mormo version of
> the Holy Ghost speaks for itself.
>
> I'll bet you'd like to get some of that sex that Joe Smith got
> regularly. Well, just pay your money to get into the 'Temple of God',
> don't take off those magic underpants, remember your 'secret'
> handshakes, be sure to insult people that ask difficult questions, lie
> down with dogs - and you'll have all the sex you want in Mormoland
> heaven with your extra wives. Joe Smith will be there to greet you and
> show you the easy lays. (You'll have to work on the tougher ones
> yourself - kind of like a dog.) Then you will become God of a planet,
> even though you can barely spell and know little about DNA except what
> you heard in the O.J. Simpson case. Surely you'll be a wonderful GOD,
> eh? Holiness to the Lord Phlegm - a true example of Mormo, er, Christ!
>
> Don't worry, you'll make a great GOD! Just pretend to be nice once in a
> while and you'll have your own creation and all the sex you want in no
> time.
Do you always act like an arogant bastard, or just in this ng? You seem to
be anti-Mormon, I assume that means you are religious? What would God think
of your slanderous nature towards another of his children? Do you care?
Probably not, which means you have no right to criticise anyway.
Adrian
Reverend Phlegm
Jeff Shirton wrote:
> I don't see this as a flaw in the Bible, but rather in the flaws of man.
> Either they are reading the Bible in a language they can't understand (such
> as Middle English), or they bring preconceived ideas in, such as from an
> established church, and try to make the Bible fit those preconceived ideas.
>
FWIW, that would be "Elizabethan English" which us a subset of "modern"
English. The average reader cannot make heads nor tails out of Middle English.
(Try reading some Chaucer sometime, you will see what I mean).
> Which leads to another problem I see in the LDS church. There seems to be
> some expectation, no some *demand*, that the Scriptures be completely
> understandable. Why do you consider the above to be an issue? Even you say
> that it's "silly". So why is it important how many hours were in that first
> day? It really has nothing whatsoever to do with our eternal salvation.
>
This Reverend (who is not really a Reverend at all) thinks that there is a
very compelling case for "long" (you know, like a zillion years each) creation
days.
> > I have my own morale compass, it's quite strong,
> > exceedingly so. I would sooner follow it then any
> > written word.
>
> Some of us find more confidence when following prayer *and* the written
> word, knowing we're on sure ground when they are in agreement.
>
> > And I pray, just like you and the
> > others. I know I'm right.
>
> The problem I find with prayer alone, is it leads to many different
> worldwide beliefs, all by people who "know they're right."
Lest we forget-- "There is a way that seemeth right to a man; but the end
thereof are the ways of death" Prov 14:12
Reverend Phlegm
John Manning wrote:
> Reverend Phlegm wrote:
> I think you are a typical Mormo cretin and have expressed yourself as
> such. Your delightsome white (pure) expression from the Mormo version of
> the Holy Ghost speaks for itself.
>
Whoa, settle down there Kemo Sabe! I think you must be attributing things to me
that I did not write. I am a nasty old anti-Mormon like you are. I am a Christian
who basically subscribes to Reformed Theology. I am a five point Calvinist (although
I am a bit uncomfortable with "limited atonement". I hate the LDS doctrines and
organization. I love Mormons. Sometimes this puts me in a real no-win situation.
If I think someone is being disingenuous-- be they Mormon, non-Mormon, or atheist. I
am not afraid to point it out. I have made my position as an LDS *critic* clear from
the very start. From time to time I am criticized for being friendly to the Mormons,
but I happen to (in general) like them. If you have a problem with that, I am afraid
you will just have to figure out a way to cope with it.
>
> I'll bet you'd like to get some of that sex that Joe Smith got
> regularly. Well, just pay your money to get into the 'Temple of God',
> don't take off those magic underpants, remember your 'secret'
> handshakes, be sure to insult people that ask difficult questions, lie
> down with dogs - and you'll have all the sex you want in Mormoland
> heaven with your extra wives. Joe Smith will be there to greet you and
> show you the easy lays. (You'll have to work on the tougher ones
> yourself - kind of like a dog.) Then you will become God of a planet,
> even though you can barely spell and know little about DNA except what
> you heard in the O.J. Simpson case. Surely you'll be a wonderful GOD,
> eh? Holiness to the Lord Phlegm - a true example of Mormo, er, Christ!
>
> Don't worry, you'll make a great GOD! Just pretend to be nice once in a
> while and you'll have your own creation and all the sex you want in no
> time.
>
John, do you not feel just a *little* embarrased?
I am not, and have never been a Mormon.
Reverend Phlegm
Adrian Parker wrote:
> > I think you are a typical Mormo cretin and have expressed yourself as
> > such. Your delightsome white (pure) expression from the Mormo version of
> > the Holy Ghost speaks for itself.
>
<snip>
> > Don't worry, you'll make a great GOD! Just pretend to be nice once in a
> > while and you'll have your own creation and all the sex you want in no
> > time.
>
> Do you always act like an arogant bastard, or just in this ng? You seem to
> be anti-Mormon, I assume that means you are religious? What would God think
> of your slanderous nature towards another of his children? Do you care?
> Probably not, which means you have no right to criticise anyway.
Don't worry, Adrian, my feelings were not hurt. Matter of fact it sort of
brightened up an otherwise dull day.
Please do not return insult for insult, but follow in Christ's footsteps:
"Who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered he threatened not;
but committed himself to him who him that judgeth righteously" I Pe 3:22
Besides, I have a feeling that Mr Manning probably felt regret within moments of
hitting that ol' "send" button. We all fly off the handle every once in a while.
Reverend Phlegm
Reverend Phlegm wrote:
> John Manning wrote:
>
> > Reverend Phlegm wrote:
OOPs, I had better fix this attribution......
John Manning
I responded to Reverend Phlegm as he responded to the original poster,
Martyn O'Conner. The cynical, hostile response he gave to this sincere
person, warranted a like response. Your comments, likewise ("Do you
always act like an arogant bastard") are noted as 'representative' of
your Mormo 'God' and your version of Christ. Are you practicing for
Mormo Godhood?
John Manning
John Manning
Your offensive answer to Martyn O'Connor deserved the response I gave.
Thankfully you are not a Mormon. But this exchange has served two
purposes. Hopefully it has reminded you to be civil when someone asks a
sincere question about spirituality AND it gave me the opportunity to
emphasize (as an arrogant bastard as I'm characterized by Adrien) the
blatant absurdity of the LDS Church.
John Manning
John Manning
Martyn O'Connor wrote:
>
> To make it simple, The Bible never hinted or even suggested that men will
> become Gods, or fly away to other planets and rule them with spirit wives or
> anything like that, Mormons are run like Microsoft with lovely external
> images hiding the purely business like attitude underneath. Obey the
> doctrine and become a God, I am stunned that so many people believe that.
>
> It's a joke... NO
>
> Hold on a second.... I've been told by God that I am the resurrected Joseph
> Smith, all faithful Morons must follow me if they want to become Gods...
> Yes, believe that you naive idiots.
Thanks Martyn, for standing up to these people! Magic underpants are not
the worst of it. It is their arrogant easy assumption and its social
consequences on a large billion dollar public relations program that is
the most offensive to humanity and truth.
John Manning
>
> "Stephen Skinner" <ski...@grn.mmtr.or.jp> wrote in message
> news:3a331cf5$0$90566$45be...@newscene.com...
> > Martyn,
> > To make it simple it amounts to being one with the Father and Christ.
> > Christ taught that we should be one just as he and his Father are one. He
> > also tought that we can be heir with Christ. That is it in a nutshell.
> > STEVE
> > Martyn O'Connor <mar...@letigre.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
Reverend Phlegm
John Manning wrote:
>
> Your offensive answer to Martyn O'Connor deserved the response I gave.
> Thankfully you are not a Mormon. But this exchange has served two
> purposes. Hopefully it has reminded you to be civil when someone asks a
> sincere question about spirituality AND it gave me the opportunity to
> emphasize (as an arrogant bastard as I'm characterized by Adrien) the
> blatant absurdity of the LDS Church.
I was (in my "offensive answer") suggesting that Martyn was trolling-- that is pretending
to be ignorant, pretending to sincerely ask a question yet having a secret agenda of
entrapment. I realize that a little innocent trolling is a part of Usenet culture, but I
was questioning his motives. From his subsequent posts, it appears that was right.
John, you have publically slandered your brother and are now justifying yourself and
refusing to repent. Not a thing I can do about it, but to point it out.
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you..." Rom 3:24, II Sam
12:14, Is 52:5, Ezek 36:23
Phlegm sez-- "Better to lose an argument than to lose you honor."
Guy R. Briggs
> jshi...@home.com (Jeff Shirton) wrote:
>
>> I had also asked you what your interpretation of the
>> potter-clay analogy was, and you didn't answer.
>
> I'd have to know the verse, study the context, and talk it
> over with missionaries and the like before being able to
> answer.
>
relationship between God and man is the same as the relationship
between a potter and the clay pots he creates, that is, the idea that
man gould ever achieve deification is just as patently absurd (to him)
as the idea of a clay pot aspiring to become the potter.
Though unexpressed, I secretly think he views Mormons as a bunch of
cracked pots, but that's grist for a different mill ;)
Mormons, OTOH, are unsympathetic to Jeff's view. In fact, I think it
puts us /below/ the animals, because pottery is incapable of thought
and emotion. Pottery is incapable of prayer, or of receiving answers to
prayer.
We believe that we are sons and daughters of God, created in His
image (what clay pot or even animal can make that statement?). Sons and
daughters, not only in the spiritual sense, but also in the sense that
we have chosen to be part of the "family" of God by accepting Christ
and being willing to take upon ourselves His name (listen closely to
the sacramental prayers). We are no more "strangers and foreigners, but
fellow-citizens with the saints" and members of the "houshold of God."
I think that the best answer to Jeff's Old Testament "potter"
scriptures (the ones he claims all of us Mormunz are afraid to answer)
comes from Revelation:
"To him who is victorious, to him who perseveres in
doing my will to the end, I will give authority over
the nations - that same authority which I received
from my Father - and [quoting Psalm 2:9] he shall
rule them with an iron rod, smashing them to bits
like earthenware"
-- Rev.2:26-27 (NEB)
So much for the clay pots. BTW, the "iron rod" - as we know from our
Book of Mormon - is the Word of God.
>>
>> If you don't have the resources to buy a modern english
>> version yourself, you might consider contacting the Gideon
>> Society. Last I checked, the New Testaments they were
>> handing out were in the New American Standard Bible version.
>
I like the NAB. Long stung by the criticism that their translation
of the Bible was skewed in favor of their doctrine, Catholic scholars
put together a translation that tried to remain true the the original
language, let the doctrinal chips fall where they may. I bought my copy
at Barnes and Noble. It has "New American Bible" across the top and is
sub-titled "The Catholic Bible - Personal Study Edition". I also have a
copy of the NIV. I use both, along with my trusty, LDS-edition, King
James Version, as I teach New Testament to 18 high school seniors in
early-morning seminary.
<remainder snipped>
bestRegards,
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guy R. "BrickWall" Briggs, MCSE* - net...@GeoCities.com
Used cars - Land - Whiskey - Manure - Nails
Fly Swatters - Racing Forms - Bongos
Wars Fought - Tires Balanced - Assassinations Plotted
Revolutions Started - Governments Run - Uprisings Quelled
Tigers Tamed - Bars Emptied - Orgies Planned
*Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
I also program computers
cdo...@my-deja.com
"Martyn O'Connor" <mar...@letigre.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Please please please answer with actual evidence, the following
question. I
> have been trying to get an answer from a Mormon for quite some time,
and all
> my efforts have amounted to have been one of two things:
>
> 1) The Mormon stops talking to me.
>
> 2) The Mormon calls me a son of Satan then stops talking to me.
>
> My question is this: Whay do Mormon's believe they will become Gods?
We accept the teachings of Christ as found in John 17:19-23 and Rev.
3:21, among others, and the teachings of the living prophets.
Best regards,
Charles dowis
"Try to reason with a cat? I'm not sure that's possible."
chris mccabe
chris mccabe
The Old Man
"Adrian Parker" <adrian...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Genesis 3:5
> > 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes
> > shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
>
> > were referring to? But the words do say, ye shall be gods! Tabitha
> > was right.
>
> Actually it says [you quoted it yourself], "and ye shall be as
gods". As
> Gods in that you know good from evil, not that you will become all
powerful,
> omnipotent etc
Mr. Adrian, where does it say that we will not become powerful and
ominpotent, it just says you shall be as gods? How many kinds of gods
are there in the scriptures anyway?
>
> I, Adrian, shall become my father in that I will father children.
This
> doesn't mean I will change into my father :-)
Also means that ye shall not become as god. ;-)
>
> Adrian
Thanks for the post Adrian, The Old Man
The Old Man
"Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote:
>
> The Old Man <the_o...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:911nvb$id4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > Mr. Shirton, you may be aware that I am no fan of
> > the Bible.
>
> I'm curious as to why you're here, then...
Mr. Shirton, I guess we could also ask all the other faiths that post;
agnostics, atheists, non-Christians, anti-Mormons; why they post here
but it would solve no purpose. However, since you are curious, I will
try to answer briefly. My wife is LDS, so I am rather curious myself
as to what others who post here believe regarding this faith. As I
have said, I am not a fan of the truthfulness of the Bible, however I
am a student of the Bible. In any case, when it comes to religion I
tend to keep my options and mind open. Who knows, perhaps I will learn
something.
>
(snip)
> All men have betrayed God.
Yes, it would appear so, if one believes the Bible. But I wonder why?
Did our teachers in the pre-existence do such a terrible job that all
men have betrayed God? Even though I have lacked the expertise that
God has, my children have faired much better, wonder why?
(snip)
> Once again, this is a quote of Psalm 82, which I already quoted in
full, and
> instead of giving my own interpretation of the entire psalm in
context,
> asked others to interpret the whole thing. I believe you say below
that
> you're not going to do that, so I guess we're at an impasse here.
>
> You say this strongly suggests that we can become gods, yet you
apparently
> refuse to study it in context.
If I stated that I would refuse to study Psalms 82, then I made a
misstatement. I have no problems studying it with you as long as
you’re serious and do not become testy and start throwing accusations
around. You are the teacher and I’ll be your questioning student.
>
> > Genesis 3:5
> > 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
> > then your eyes
> > shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing
> > good and evil.
>
> This doesn't say that they would become gods, but simply become *as*
gods.
> In what respect? Similar to God in that they too would know good and
evil.
Apparently they were not as gods before they ate, therefore to be as
gods after they ate, they must have become gods. Nice try though. (g)
We agree that the scripture means they are similar to God then? Who
knows what kind of gods, I don’t think that is made clear.
>
> > Revelation 3:21
> > 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with
> > me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am
> > set down with my Father in his throne.
> > (One must be a god to set down with Jesus on God's
> > throne, I would think). (Also, to live in Heaven
> > with streets paved with the royal metal gold would
> > suggest a special place fit for gods).
>
> Both of these ideas are nothing more than assumptions on your part,
which
> isn't necessarily a bad thing, but one must keep in mind their
relative
> weight, related to things which are explicitly taught in Scripture.
>
> Personally, I don't see how either one follows naturally, unless you
have a
> preconceived conclusion that man will become god, and you want
support for
> that.
I support nothing and have no axe to grind. However, you are correct,
my statements are assumptions on my part. My personal belief is that
all different faiths of organized religion have made assumptions,
otherwise, why the different doctrines?
>
> > As for your questions, I can not comment one way
> > or another for the Bible is very poorly written
>
> If that is so, then what good is it, in your opinion?
In my opinion? No good if applied to a philosophy of life without
understanding and believing, but good as a study of history and as to
why some believe the way they do. Very interesting to me.
>
> > as evidenced by the many religions that
> > claim it as their authority.
>
> Sorry, I don't blame that on the Bible. I blame that on men.
I think the responsibility should be shared. Rarely is anything wrong
the fault of only one side.
>
> > I have yet to meet a Christian who has
> > not taken verses out of context . . .
>
> That's a rather harsh accusation. The only way I could see someone
being
> able to justify such an accusation, is if they know the true meaning
of all
> the verses *in* context, and I would consider that an arrogant claim.
Yes, it is a rather harsh accusation and is an arrogant claim.
However, fact is fact, I never met one Christian that did not take
scriptures out of context. It is done daily on this N.G. I think we
all must take some blame for arrogance in religion.
>
> > otherwise how can they support
> > their differences from one another?
>
> There are many different ways. Literalism vs figurativism, degrees of
> importance, wording, etc. Context only comes in if there is an
explicit
> context in the surrounding passages which dictates the interpretation
of the
> verse(s) in question. If there is no definitive context, or if
differing
> interpretations are not related directly to the context, then context
is not
> the source of the error.
Sounds reasonable to me. Context then becomes one of many problems
then.
> > Who knows what gods the scriptures
> > were referring to?
>
> You mention many different sects of Christians with very different
> theologies. However, the vast majority of them are united in the
belief
> that the Bible teaches that only one God exists, that being YHWH.
Well, you would know more about that than I. I know that the
Protestants and the Catholics in Ireland, for example, believe in the
same God. The Israelites and the Palestinians believe in the same
God. The Mormons believe in a God and they claim all the other
churches believe in a false God. The Jehovah Witnesses clearly claim
they are the only ones going to Heaven. The Seventh Day Adventist
claims all churches except them dishonor the Sabbath. I could go on,
but you get the drift I’m sure.
> > But the words do say, ye shall be gods! Tabitha
> > was right.
>
> You say this, yet you refuse to study the context of the entire Psalm
(86),
> which in fact tells you "what gods the scriptures were referring to".
How many gods are there in the Bible?
>
> > Course all of this is just speculation on my part,
> > who really knows if we will be gods, do you?
>
> Well, since you asked... Yes, I do know.
What is it you know?
>
> > However, I believe if one studies the Bible
> > one can make the case that it is possible to join
> > the ranks of godhood. The Old Man
>
> Yet you apparently refuse to do just that!
> Care to change your mind, and study Psalm 82 with me?
> (or with anyone else?)
I do not refuse, start teaching. The Old Man
>
> Jeff Shirton
Guy R. Briggs
>
> My question is this: Whay do Mormon's believe they will
> become Gods?
>
that good. That said, here's the doctrine, in a nutshell:
First, we are all literal sons and daughters of God. References to
God as our Father in heaven are too numerous to mention, but the idea
is best captured by the Lord's Prayer: "Our Father [who] art in
heaven." (Mormons believe that "who" is a more appropriate pronoun than
"which" in this usage). Other references: In Job, God asks:
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the
earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
"Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?
or who hath stretched the line upon it?
"Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or
who laid the corner stone thereof;
"When the morning stars sang together, and all the
sons of God shouted for joy?"
-- Job 38:4-7
Mormons believe that all mankind was there, before the foundations
of the earth. That all of us were among the "sons of God [who] shouted
for joy". In John, we read:
"But as many as received him, to them gave he power
to become the sons of God, even to them that believe
on his name:"
Now, this might seem contradictory at first blush. But it's not. We
see mankind as spirit sons and daughters of our Father in Heaven. But
some of us choose to be part of the family of Christ here on earth.
Thus, Christ, who is our Spirit brother and the only begotten Son of
God according to the flesh, is also the Father of our salvation,
becoming both the Father and the Son to us.
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they
are the sons of God.
"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again
to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption,
whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit,
that we are the children of God:
"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-
heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him,
that we may be also glorified together."
-- Rom.8:14-17
We interpret that last verse quite literally. We are the children of
God, both spiritually and by choice. We are also heirs. Joint-heirs
with Christ, in fact, and we see that as inclusive of his power and
glory as well - we will be "glorified together" wtih Christ.
In Revelation 3:21 we are given this straightforward promise: "To
him that overcometh will I [Christ] grant to sit with me in my throne,
even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."
This is another clear expression of the fact that the faithful will
inherit all that Christ has received from the Father.
But Mormons aren't the only ones to believe this doctrine. There's a
lot of it in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Hippolytus, for
example, wrote:
"But if thou art desirous of also becoming a god, obey
him that has created thee, and resist not now, in order
that, being found faithful in that which is small you
may be enabled to have entrusted to you also that which
is great. (Roberts and Donaldson 5:151)"
And also ...
"And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one
placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just
like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom
of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in
this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou
shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir
with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions,
and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast
become God; for whatever sufferings thou didst
undergo while being a man, these he gave to thee,
because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it
is consistent with God to impart, these God has
promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been
deified, and begotten unto immortality. This
constitutes the import of the proverb, 'Know thyself,'
i.e., discover God within thyself, for he has formed
thee after his own image. (Roberts and Donaldson 5:153)
Origen taught that true salvation consisted of being made divine.
He even said
" ... we should flee with all our power from being
men and make haste to become gods ..." (Norman
1975:16; Prestige 73-74).
Clement of Alexandria actually used the word "theopeeos" which
means, literally, "to make god".
If it's good enough for the likes of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Polycarp,
Clement of Rome, and Papias then why does the "blasphemy alarm" start
flashing when the idea of deification is uttered by a Mormon?
Glenn Thigpen
> John Preston <thet...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:911loo$eq4$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > To say that humans can become gods is a fairly logical
> > extention of several new testament implications.
>
> So "logical" that it went unknown for 1800 years?
>
Not quite. Some of the early church leaders beleived in the possibility of
men becoming gods. The idea was rejected by later uninspired men who helped
shape the Chriatian creed toward Hellenism.
Glenn
Jeff Shirton
> > I had also asked you what your interpretation of the
> > potter-clay analogy was, and you didn't answer.
>
> I'd have to know the verse, study the context,
I'm sorry, I thought you had them.
Isa. 29:16, 41:25, 64:8, Jer. 18:6, Rom. 9:21.
> and talk it over with
> missionaries and the like before being able to answer.
Why would you need to talk it over with "missionaries"?
If I wanted their interpretation, wouldn't I just ask them directly? I'm
asking you.
> > So my follow-up question to that, is why do we sin
> > the first time? If we're not sinful by nature, why
> > can we not simply choose to remain sinless?
>
> Temptation.
Okay. Let me rephrase. Why can't we resist temptation?
> Why do non-smokers smoke?
Huh?! I'm not sure.. Why do non-rapists rape?!
> Are we born with a pre-disposition to smoke?
I believe we are born with a pre-disposition to do wrong, due being born
sinful.
> Actually I have a Gideon Bible. I have no read it in
> some time, but is it also not old English?
It may very well be, depending on how old it it. I think the one I got in
grade school, in the '70's, was KJV. But now I think they're using the
NASB.
> Which is fine. But if we're willing to admit there
> are translation problems in one spot, how do we know
> they are not in another? What can we trust?
Well, for one thing, the "translation problems" of old, even when they
existed, never included anything that was doctrinally significant. God has
made sure to preserve His word well enough to ensure that His Gospel always
remained intact.
Second, with all the manuscript evidence we have today, and all the Greek
and Hebrew scholars, who have worked on various translations, literally
1000's of them, spanning most denominations, and most countries, to try to
avoid any kind of bias, they all seem to be pretty much in agreement. I can
pick up any modern Bible version, RSV, NASB, NIV, TEV, and be confident that
what I read is the same in each of them, and be confident that it is the
same meaning as when it was first penned.
> > But certainly, it should be adequate with regards to
> > what it was intended to describe, right?
>
> For the time period that it was given, yes. In
> today's society it may mean nothing.
> Humans can strive to be something they are not.
> Clay just *is*. It cannot strive.
But in the time period these were written, humans were still able to
"strive". So how has society nullified God's word through time?
> So how can the analogy be even sensible let
> alone anything else?
>
> > Who asked you about that?
>
> Man evolving into God was likened to clay evolving
> into a potter. That is what I got out of it anyway
> [a lie actually, the written verse is nonsensicle to me].
Okay, here's what I think happened.
You asserted your ideas about man exalting (ie. human ideas)
I posted some passages containing the Potter-clay analogy showing that the
idea about man exalting to godhood was firmly unBiblical.
You replied that since the Potter-clay analogy in the Bible is nonsensical
when applied to the idea of exaltation (which was exactly my *point*!), you
decided that the Potter-clay analogy had to be wrong, saying that the Bible
is wrong, and the human idea is right.
So am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying that your prayerful searches
have determined that the Bible is wrong, and man's ideas are right?
> Adrian
Jeff Shirton
Jeff Shirton
Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message
news:90077ECFAnetza...@131.119.28.155...
> It's easy, Adrian. Jeff is hardline Calvinist and
> his view of the relationship between God and man is
> the same as the relationship between a potter and the
> clay pots he creates, that is, the idea that man gould
> ever achieve deification is just as patently absurd
> (to him) as the idea of a clay pot aspiring to become
> the potter.
Yes, that's *one* aspect of the relationship.
You go on to ridicule my beliefs below:
> Though unexpressed, I secretly think he views
> Mormons as a bunch of cracked pots, but that's grist
> for a different mill ;)
You can think what you want about me, I don't really care.
But once you start posting it, it becomes "libel". However, the straw-man
remark seems to be of sufficiently light-hearted nature that I won't take
offense.
> Mormons, OTOH, are unsympathetic to Jeff's view.
> In fact, I think it puts us /below/ the animals,
> because pottery is incapable of thought and emotion.
> Pottery is incapable of prayer, or of receiving
> answers to prayer.
You can't seriously think that this is actually my "view", can you? If you
actually do, then allow me to correct you. If you didn't seriously think
that to begin with, then shame on you.
As I said, the Potter-clay analogy teaches us *ONE* aspect of our
relationship with God, namely that He is the Creator, we are the created,
and we are not like Him, "species-wise".
There is nothing in the context of any of the Potter-clay references to
teach that we are unable to communicate with Him, or to be *ADOPTED* by Him,
or to share in Him.
> We believe that we are sons and daughters of God,
> created in His image
Yes, *created*, not "begotten". That's a significant point.
> (what clay pot or even animal can make that statement?).
Well, if a Potter made an image of Himself out of clay, then... But the
minor flaw in this argument is that a human potter doesn't have the ability
to animate his clay image, nor to adopt it into his family. As even Adrian
will attest to, and support me on, analogies are not always perfect, nor are
they always intended to be.
> Sons and daughters, not only in the spiritual sense,
> but also in the sense that we have chosen to be part
> of the "family" of God by accepting Christ
Again, "chosen" is a key point here. When a couple gets pregnant, as they
"beget" a child, how do they "choose" it? How do they "choose" what sex it
will be, what colour eyes it will have, or anything else about it? They
*don't*. They get what they get, there is no "choice" involved.
The only time a "choice" can be involved, is when your family comes to you
through *ADOPTION*:
Rom 8:15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery
to fall back into fear, but you received a
spirit of adoption, through which we cry,
"Abba, Father!"
Gal 4:5 to ransom those under the law, so that we
might receive adoption.
Eph 1:5 he destined us for adoption to himself
through Jesus Christ, in accord with the
favor of his will,
> We are no more "strangers and foreigners, but
> fellow-citizens with the saints" and members of the
> "houshold of God."
Only through "adoption". (See above.)
> I think that the best answer to Jeff's Old
> Testament "potter" scriptures (the ones he claims
> all of us Mormunz are afraid to answer) comes from
> Revelation:
>
> "To him who is victorious, to him who
> perseveres in doing my will to the end,
> I will give authority over the nations
> - that same authority which I received
> from my Father - and [quoting Psalm 2:9]
> he shall rule them with an iron rod,
> smashing them to bits like earthenware"
> -- Rev.2:26-27
Okay, so please explain to me how this is "the best answer"?
What does it mean? How does it in any way negate the following Scriptures?:
Isa. 29:16, 41:25, 64:8, Jer. 18:6, Rom. 9:21
Exactly why do you think that the 'best answer' to respond to the context of
a particular passage, is to simply quote a completely different passage in a
completely different book?!
I just don't get it...
> So much for the clay pots.
Why? Does your "Revelation" passage remove the "Potter-clay" passages from
the Bible? What does one have to do with the other?
> Guy R. "BrickWall" Briggs, MCSE*
Jeff Shirton
Jeff Shirton
> > > Mr. Shirton, you may be aware that I am no fan of
> > > the Bible.
> >
> > I'm curious as to why you're here, then...
>
> Mr. Shirton, I guess we could also ask all the
> other faiths that post;
> agnostics, atheists, non-Christians, anti-Mormons;
> why they post here but it would solve no purpose.
I'm sorry if you felt my question was out of line. I was simply curious.
I understand why LDS are here, and why non-LDS Christians are here. They
both hold the Bible to be important, and so discussions are very relevant.
But I don't understand why atheists are here. And when you said you don't
hold the Bible in high regard, I wondered about you as well, as it simply
didn't make sense.
But you offered the reason that your wife is LDS, and that makes it
perfectly understandable. You are allowed to be here no matter what, but
since you have such a tight LDS connection, it simply makes it easier to
understand.
No hard feelings, I hope...
> Yes, it would appear so, if one believes the Bible.
> But I wonder why? Did our teachers in the
> pre-existence do such a terrible job that all men
> have betrayed God?
Non-LDS don't believe in a "pre-existence".
> misstatement. I have no problems studying it with
> you as long as you're serious and do not become testy
> and start throwing accusations around.
Fair warning... I am very passionate about my beliefs.
However, I will promise that I won't call you "stupid" if you refuse to
agree with my interpretation... <g>
> > > Genesis 3:5
> > > 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
> > > then your eyes
> > > shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing
> > > good and evil.
> >
> > This doesn't say that they would become gods, but
> > simply become *as* gods.
> > In what respect? Similar to God in that they too would know good and
> evil.
>
> Apparently they were not as gods before they ate,
> therefore to be as
> gods after they ate, they must have become gods.
Hmmm... I guess I'm going to have to requote what I wrote above, since it
directly refutes your statement:
"This doesn't say they would become gods, but simply become *as* gods. In
what respect? Similar to GOd in that they too would know good an evil."
To say that they will be "as" gods, is the same as they would be saying
"like" gods. These are standard terms used in similies, where one thing is
compared to another, when it is similar in *one* respect.
For instance, to say, "Her skin was as silk", is not to say that her skin
*is* silk, but simply that it has one thing in common with it.
In the same way, God has many attributes, or characteristics. He is
Eternal, He is Almighty, He is omniscient, He is omnipresent, etc. etc. etc.
When they ate of the tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve developed the *one*
attribute of God in that they too knew good and evil. That didn't make them
"gods", as it didn't make them eternal, or almighty, or omnipresent, or any
other attribute of God, other than that one attribute of knowing good and
evil. I hope this is clearer.
> Yes, it is a rather harsh accusation and is an
> arrogant claim. However, fact is fact, I never met
> one Christian that did not take scriptures out of
> context. It is done daily on this N.G.
Once again, I must ask how you can make that claim, or determination? Why
are you allegedly better than any one of us, in that you are the only one
who can understand the verses in context? Is it because we are all biased
by our respective faiths? Are none of us able to be honest enough to
realize when we are looking at a passage, and trying to understand it
outside of any preconceived framework?
> God. The Mormons believe in a God and they claim all
> the other churches believe in a false God. The
> Jehovah Witnesses clearly claim they are the only
> ones going to Heaven. The Seventh Day Adventist
> claims all churches except them dishonor the Sabbath.
> I could go on, but you get the drift I'm sure.
You seem to be straddling a fence between, "Do they recognize the same God",
and "Do they recognize and accept each other", which are two decidedly
different questions.
> > > Course all of this is just speculation on my part,
> > > who really knows if we will be gods, do you?
> >
> > Well, since you asked... Yes, I do know.
>
> What is it you know?
I know what you asked me, if we will be gods.
We will not be gods. There is only one god. God.
Jeff Shirton
Guy R. Briggs <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message
> First, we are all literal sons and daughters of
> God. References to God as our Father in heaven are
> too numerous to mention,
Our *adopted* Father in heaven:
Rom 8:15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery
to fall back into fear, but you received a
spirit of adoption, through which we cry,
"Abba, Father!"
Gal 4:5 to ransom those under the law, so that we
might receive adoption.
Gal 4:6 As proof that you are children, God sent
the spirit of his Son into our hearts,
crying out, "Abba, Father!"
Gal 4:7 So you are no longer a slave but a child,
and if a child then also an heir, through God.
Eph 1:5 he destined us for adoption to himself
through Jesus Christ, in accord with the
favor of his will,
> Guy R. "BrickWall" Briggs, MCSE* -
Jeff Shirton
Sean Mello
"Glenn Thigpen" <glen...@beaufortco.com> wrote in message
news:3A35878F...@beaufortco.com...
It may surprise some to learn that a monotheistic doctrine of
deification was taught by many of the church fathers, and is
believed by many Christians today, including the entire Eastern
Orthodox church. In keeping with _mono_theism, the Eastern orthodox
do not teach that men will literally become "gods" (which would be
polytheism). Rather, as did many of the church fathers, they
teach that men are "deified" in the sense that the Holy Spirit
dwells within Christian believers and transforms them into the
image of God in Christ, eventually endowing them in the
resurrection with immortality and God's perfect moral character. They
never teach ultimate diefication of man to godhood.
It may be objected that to classify as monotheistic any
doctrine which refers to men in some positive sense as "gods" is
self-contradictory; and strictly speaking such an objection is
valid. Indeed, later in this study it shall be argued that such
terminology is not biblical. However, the point here is that
however inconsistent and confusing the language that is used (and
it is inconsistent), the substance of what the Eastern Orthodox
are seeking to express when they speak of deification is actually
faithful to the monotheistic world view. The language used is
polytheistic, and in the light of Scripture should be rejected; but
the doctrine intended by this language in the context of the
teachings of the fathers and of Eastern Orthodoxy is quite
biblical, and is thus not actually polytheistic.
Thus, it should not be argued that anyone who speaks of
"deification" necessarily holds to a heretical view of man. Such a
sweeping judgment would condemn many of the early church's greatest
theologians (e.g., Athanasius, Augustine, C.S. Lewis), as well as historic
orthodox Christianity in existence today. On the other hand, some doctrines
of deification are most certainly heretical, because they are unbiblical in
substance as well as in terminology.
The Mormons are very explicit in their "scriptures" that there
are many Gods; for example, the three persons of the Trinity are
regarded as three "Gods." Since they believe that many Gods
exist but at present worship only one -- God the Father -- at least
one Mormon scholar has admitted with qualifications that their
doctrine could be termed "henotheistic." Henotheism is a variety
of polytheism in which there are many gods, but only one which
should be worshipped. Thus, the meaning of deification in Mormonism
is radically different than that of the church fathers who used
similar terms, despite Mormon arguments to the contrary.
Adrian Parker
like the creator. Certainly as perfection creations (not perfect beings)
God would have given us the potential.
That is just my opinion. You may believe otherwise, that is ok. We're not
going to convince one another elsewise though.
Adrian
Jeff Shirton
> I must return to work, but I can't understand why
> the created can't become like the creator.
Aside from the God-human relationship, which is at issue, can you name *one*
"Creator-created" pair, where the created can become like the creator, in
the sense you argue?
And please remember, "begetting" is not "creating".
> Certainly as perfection creations (not perfect beings)
> God would have given us the potential.
I really love how people who are desparate to hold onto an unsound belief,
always end up using words like "certainly", or "surely", or "obviously",
when it is rarely ever "certain", or "sure", or "obvious".
> That is just my opinion. You may believe otherwise,
> that is ok. We're not going to convince one another
> elsewise though.
Perhaps not. But if I can convince you, or others, that such a thought runs
completely contrary to the Bible (Isa. 29:16, 41:25, 64:8, Jer. 18:6, Rom.
9:21), then perhaps we have made some progress.
Isa 29:16 Your perversity is as though the potter
were taken to be the clay: As though what
is made should say of its maker, "He made
me not!" Or the vessel should say of the
potter, "He does not understand."
> Adrian
Jeff Shirton
Adrian Parker
> Martyn O'Conner. The cynical, hostile response he gave to this sincere
> person, warranted a like response. Your comments, likewise ("Do you
> always act like an arogant bastard") are noted as 'representative' of
> your Mormo 'God' and your version of Christ. Are you practicing for
> Mormo Godhood?
I am not a part of any religion. I do not attend any church.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
> blatant absurdity of the LDS Church.
In all fairness I'd have said it to the other lad, had I seen the post and
found it offensive.
Oh, and it's Adrian. I'm not French or female :-)
Adrian
Adrian Parker
> relationship between God and man is the same as the relationship
> between a potter and the clay pots he creates, that is, the idea that
> man gould ever achieve deification is just as patently absurd (to him)
> as the idea of a clay pot aspiring to become the potter.
I know what he meant, I'm just saying the analogy is flawed.
> I also program computers
What languages? I'm familiar with [or had been before turning my back on
Linux] Perl and C++. Has been a very long time indeed though.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
*one*
> "Creator-created" pair, where the created can become like the creator, in
> the sense you argue?
In the sense I argue? Any son/daughter who "surpases" their parents...
> And please remember, "begetting" is not "creating".
I do not agree. Before conception there is no life there, and no body for
the life to be. The couple do indeed create life, and the vassal it shall
live within.
> > Certainly as perfection creations (not perfect beings)
> > God would have given us the potential.
>
> I really love how people who are desparate to hold onto an unsound belief,
> always end up using words like "certainly", or "surely", or "obviously",
> when it is rarely ever "certain", or "sure", or "obvious".
As we *are* created by a perfect being, we *are* perfect creations.
As we *are* perfect creations we *do* have perfect potential.
Happy?
> Perhaps not. But if I can convince you, or others, that such a thought
runs
> completely contrary to the Bible (Isa. 29:16, 41:25, 64:8, Jer. 18:6, Rom.
> 9:21), then perhaps we have made some progress.
I get very little of what I believe from any (ANY) written work. In fact
I've never even read the Bible in it's entirety.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
>
> Isa. 29:16, 41:25, 64:8, Jer. 18:6, Rom. 9:21.
No, I know the chapters [or at least I knew they were quoted earlier and
could find them], it's a Bible which I don't own.
> Why would you need to talk it over with "missionaries"?
> If I wanted their interpretation, wouldn't I just ask them directly? I'm
> asking you.
Because I've read what was posted of the potter thing, and I don't get out
of it what you guys do. I just see metaphor. I see something which is
grammaticaly incorrect by today's standards, and I make no claim in having a
like imagination of the writer to know his take on it.
> Okay. Let me rephrase. Why can't we resist temptation?
We can.
I don't smoke after all. The church calls it wrong [smoking that is].
> > Why do non-smokers smoke?
>
> Huh?! I'm not sure.. Why do non-rapists rape?!
You asked something along the lines of why do we sin if we are not sinners.
It's like, "Why do non-smokers start to smoke?" It's just something they
do. There is a beginning to everything.
> Well, for one thing, the "translation problems" of old, even when they
> existed, never included anything that was doctrinally significant. God
has
> made sure to preserve His word well enough to ensure that His Gospel
always
> remained intact.
I don't buy that concept.
> > > But certainly, it should be adequate with regards to
> > > what it was intended to describe, right?
Yes and no. I see allot of metaphor and simile in the Bible. Such things
are dependant upon the frame of mind at time of writing. Today the same
words may be mistaken.
Someone once told me you can use the Bible to prove anything with minimal
thought. I tend to be in agreement. If not why does one group claim their
is exaltation, and another say scriptures explicitly deny it? Why does one
group say "Gods" refers to being like God, and another says "gods" means
*being* actual gods?
> But in the time period these were written, humans were still able to
> "strive". So how has society nullified God's word through time?
Because we likely more rational and thoughtful now of what words mean. The
fact that I question the validity of the metaphor is example.
> I posted some passages containing the Potter-clay analogy showing that the
> idea about man exalting to godhood was firmly unBiblical.
In the quote you did give, I do not see them likening the clay analogy onto
man becoming God.
> So am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying that your prayerful
searches
> have determined that the Bible is wrong, and man's ideas are right?
I put far more faith in prayer then any book which is not written plainly
and directly. Tell me it's plain and direct and I'll ask you why everyone
doesn't get the exact same ideas from it.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
> churches believe in a false God.
I keep hearing that, but nobody in my local branch tells me such, even when
asked. In fact all missionaries I've asked answered as I thought to begin
with, that everyone has a little bit of the truth. Well, except they think
they know all the truth.
Adrian
Jeff Shirton
John Manning wrote:
> > I responded to Reverend Phlegm as he responded to
> > the original poster, Martyn O'Conner. The cynical,
> > hostile response he gave to this sincere
> > person, warranted a like response.
"warranted a like response"? Is that what Jesus taught?
Mat 5:39 But I say to you, offer no resistance to one
who is evil. When someone strikes you on
(your) right cheek, turn the other one to
him as well.
Luk 6:29 To the person who strikes you on one cheek,
offer the other one as well, and from the
person who takes your cloak, do not withhold
even your tunic.
Maybe Paul taught differently?:
2Ti 2:15 Be eager to present yourself as acceptable to
God, a workman who causes no disgrace,
imparting the word of truth without deviation.
2Ti 2:16 Avoid profane, idle talk, for such people
will become more and more godless,
Nope... Guess not.
> > Your comments, likewise ("Do you
> > always act like an arogant bastard") are noted
> > as 'representative' of your Mormo 'God' and your
> > version of Christ. Are you practicing for Mormo
> > Godhood?
>
> I am not a part of any religion. I do not attend
> any church.
I don't approve of discourteous actions (eg. "Mormo"), and I don't approve
of people telling others what they believe.
However...
While it is true that you don't claim to be part of any religion, and that
you don't attend church, is it not also true that you embrace LDS beliefs,
including, ironically "exaltation into godhood" (since we have been just
discussing the validity of that doctrine), and isn't it also true that you
told me that you had to speak to (LDS?) "missionaries" before giving me an
answer about the Potter-clay analogy?
> Adrian
Jeff Shirton
Adrian Parker
> ominpotent, it just says you shall be as gods? How many kinds of gods
> are there in the scriptures anyway?
I believe in exaltation. I'm merely pointing out that your quote does not
explicitly prove it.
Adrian
Jeff Shirton
> > "Creator-created" pair, where the created can become
> > like the creator, in the sense you argue?
>
> In the sense I argue? Any son/daughter who "surpases" their parents...
>
>
> > And please remember, "begetting" is not "creating".
>
> I do not agree. Before conception there is no life
> there, and no body for the life to be. The couple
> do indeed create life, and the vassal it shall
> live within.
Well, I have to give you credit, that seems to be a logical requirement for
the belief you hold.
So to come back to our God-human analogy, then, I guess you believe that our
relationship with God, with Him being our Father, is not simply an "adopted"
one (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:5, Eph. 1:5), but a literal one as well?
If that's the case, is God your literal father, or is He rather your literal
great-great-(great^n)-grandfather?
> > I really love how people who are desparate to hold
> > onto an unsound belief, always end up using words
> > like "certainly", or "surely", or "obviously",
> > when it is rarely ever "certain", or "sure", or
> > "obvious".
>
> As we *are* created by a perfect being, we *are* perfect creations.
>
> As we *are* perfect creations we *do* have perfect potential.
>
> Happy?
No, not really. Of course you're free to believe anything you want, but in
sharing with others, simply making hollow assertions, as facts, really
doesn't mean much.
As an example, say "Go(r)d", the perfect Baker, makes cookie cutters to make
human-shaped cookies. He made these cookie cutters perfectly, all the edges
perfectly straight, exact proportions, non flaws whatsoever. Then a guy
with an attitude, "S()tan" comes around and takes a hammer to the cookie
cutter, hopelessly bending its perfect shape into something bent and
imperfect. Every single cookie made out of that cookie cutter will become
inperfect, even though the mold was made by the perfect Baker.
And so it is with our sinful nature. It has corrupted us down the line.
Never will a cookie made from the broken cookie cutter become a perfect
cookie, let alone a perfect human Baker.
> > Perhaps not. But if I can convince you, or others,
> > that such a thought runs completely contrary to the
> > Bible (Isa. 29:16, 41:25, 64:8, Jer. 18:6, Rom.
> > 9:21), then perhaps we have made some progress.
>
> I get very little of what I believe from any (ANY)
> written work. In fact
> I've never even read the Bible in it's entirety.
Then it would no problem for you to read the above passages, study their
respective contexts, and draw a conclusion with respect to exaltation to
Godhood. And since you're not "officially" a Mormon, with no compulsion to
claim the Bible is correct (indeed, you have pretty much claimed the
opposite) it would not be difficult for you to compare how those Bible
passages and the idea of "exaltation" compare to each other, when stood side
by side.
> Adrian
Jeff Shirton
Adrian Parker
I didn't write that. You're quoting the wrong guy.
> While it is true that you don't claim to be part of any religion, and that
> you don't attend church, is it not also true that you embrace LDS beliefs,
Yes. On the other hand I drink Pepsi and I'm not against caffeine, so
neither am I a pure blood.
I hear different concepts from different religions. I evaluate each in
turn.
> told me that you had to speak to (LDS?) "missionaries" before giving me an
> answer about the Potter-clay analogy?
Incorrect, they could have as easily been Jehovas [spelling?]. Which are
missionaries by deed if not by title.
Adrian
Jeff Shirton
> > Isa. 29:16, 41:25, 64:8, Jer. 18:6, Rom. 9:21.
>
> No, I know the chapters [or at least I knew they
> were quoted earlier and
> could find them], it's a Bible which I don't own.
I was going to offer to send you a Bible, if you wanted to email me your
address. But as a quicker solution, check out this site:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible
You can either do word searches, or display entire chapters, in a number of
translation choices, as well as language choices. And you can even print
them out, if you don't like to do excessive reading on a computer monitor.
> > Why would you need to talk it over with "missionaries"?
> > If I wanted their interpretation, wouldn't I just
> > ask them directly? I'm asking you.
>
> Because I've read what was posted of the potter thing,
> and I don't get out of it what you guys do.
Actually, with all due respect, you seem to get *EXACTLY* what we do out "of
the potter thing". That it runs contrary to the idea of exaltation.
I don't like posting entire chapters, and I assumed (wrongly) that you owned
an entire Bible, and so could look it up on your own. Well, at least now
you have access to the Scriptures on-line.
> I just see metaphor.
But a metaphor for what?!
One of the reasons that cross-faith discussions like this is that when one
side points out a passage, the other side simply says, "That doesn't say
that". So what *does* it say? It must mean something, right? I must have
been put there for some reason, right? Why then?
> I see something which is grammaticaly incorrect by
> today's standards,
By your argument, though, it would be "gramattical[l]y incorrect" by the
standards of the day it was written, as well.
(Btw, it's not a grammar issue. It's gramatically correct,
just like, "The ball yelled at the dog" is gramatically correct.)
> and I make no claim in having a
> like imagination of the writer to know his take on it.
So you seem to be saying (and please pardon me if I get your position wrong,
but it's not very clear) that since we can't understand what the writer
meant, it's now worthless to us?
(And this is your position, even before you looked at the whole passage in
context?)
> > Okay. Let me rephrase. Why can't we resist temptation?
>
> We can.
Do all humans, resist all temptations?
If not, why not?
> I don't smoke after all. The church calls it wrong
> [smoking that is].
That's but one of many temptations.
Pick a temptation you didn't resist (you don't even have to say what it
was). Why couldn't you resist it?
> > > Why do non-smokers smoke?
> >
> > Huh?! I'm not sure.. Why do non-rapists rape?!
>
> You asked something along the lines of why do we sin if we are not
sinners.
>
> It's like, "Why do non-smokers start to smoke?" It's
> just something they do. There is a beginning
> to everything.
My position is that smokers *begin* to smoke, and rapists *begin* to rape,
(etc. etc.) because we are, in fact sinners. If we were not sinners from
the get-go, then we would not sin.
So your (apparent?) position, that non-sinners become sinners, simply
because they "begin", makes no sense to me.
Why do they "begin"?
> Someone once told me you can use the Bible to prove
> anything with minimal thought. I tend to be in
> agreement.
I tend to agree that anyone can *believe* anything in the Bible, if all they
use is "minimal thought".
If they want to put a *lot* of thought into it, and a lot of prayer, and are
sincerely interested in what it has to teach, and is careful not to be
swayed or biased by external groups, then it teaches one, whole, cohesive,
beautiful thing.
That's why I don't take the scriptures and say, "Look, here's the
proof-text, I'm right, you're wrong, and nanny nanny boo boo!"
I say, "look, here are a number of passages which support this Biblical
teaching, study them in their full context, and if you don't agree with me,
then please tell me what you *think* they teach?"
> If not why does one group claim their is exaltation,
> and another say scriptures explicitly deny it? Why
> does one group say "Gods" refers to being like God,
> and another says "gods" means *being* actual gods?
Because "groups" have people telling them what the Bible teaches. While
they may not specifically teach for individuals not to study the Bible for
themselves, the present society's values place a limit on the amount of time
for Bible study, and compare that to claims of religious leaders (the Pope,
Rev. Moon, LDS President, Watchtower Society, etc.) which give their
followers faith that these leaders will tell them the truth of the Bible
without them having to study it themselves, then what would you expect?
> > But in the time period these were written, humans
> > were still able to
> > "strive". So how has society nullified God's
> > word through time?
>
> Because we likely more rational and thoughtful now
> of what words mean. The fact that I question the
> validity of the metaphor is example.
All I can really say to that, is that you'll make a really good Mormon one
day. :-(
> > So am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying
> > that your prayerful searches have determined that
> > the Bible is wrong, and man's ideas are right?
>
> I put far more faith in prayer then any book which
> is not written plainly and directly.
Are you willing to answer my question any more directly than that? (My
question was a "yes-no" question.)
> Tell me it's plain and direct and I'll ask you
> why everyone doesn't get the exact same ideas from it.
I'm a teacher. Most of our classes involve textbooks, which naturally
contain factually correct information, and which is hopefully "plain and
direct". If students fail the course, does that mean that the text is
wrong, or that it isn't "plain and direct"?
> Adrian
Jeff Shirton
Adrian Parker
our
> relationship with God, with Him being our Father, is not simply an
"adopted"
> one (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:5, Eph. 1:5), but a literal one as well?
I'm not entirely sure how I feel on that one. I think I tend to lean more
toward him not being our physical father, but spiritual. However, I view
God in a family-like way. He's more my father (like fathers as we know them
on Earth) and friend then he is my creator (which makes me feel as if I'm
his playtoy, to be done with as he sees fit).
> As an example, say "Go(r)d", the perfect Baker, makes cookie cutters to
make
> human-shaped cookies. He made these cookie cutters perfectly, all the
edges
> perfectly straight, exact proportions, non flaws whatsoever. Then a guy
> with an attitude, "S()tan" comes around and takes a hammer to the cookie
> cutter, hopelessly bending its perfect shape into something bent and
> imperfect. Every single cookie made out of that cookie cutter will become
> inperfect, even though the mold was made by the perfect Baker.
I don't believe our potential has been harmed by living life on Earth. Our
views may be imperfect, but once back to our heavenly father we will be
shown absolute truth in absolute clarity.
> And so it is with our sinful nature. It has corrupted us down the line.
> Never will a cookie made from the broken cookie cutter become a perfect
> cookie, let alone a perfect human Baker.
But what if they are fixed? As God's teachings will fix us once we return
to his side.
> claim the Bible is correct (indeed, you have pretty much claimed the
> opposite) it would not be difficult for you to compare how those Bible
> passages and the idea of "exaltation" compare to each other, when stood
side
> by side.
Well, I have a few problems with the Bible. The Bible whos me God in a
vindictive evil being if you don't follow what he says. I mean don't follow
what he says and he'll turn you to salt kinda thing. That is not very
compassionate, and in my mind such things tell me that we mean nothing to
God. That he would happily destroy, without thought, that which he also
claims to love. I have a hard time understanding that.
Would a perfect being not have more understanding?
Adrian
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
<snip>
>> Though unexpressed, I secretly think he views
>> Mormons as a bunch of cracked pots, but that's
>> grist for a different mill ;)
>
> You can think what you want about me, I don't really care.
>
Actually, I'm glad to see you back on a.r.m. Even though we used to
tease you a little bit about the "<sigh>" construction. I remember that
you posted a very cogent and informative treatise on the Calvinist
"TULIP" that helped me understand that point of view (or was it Troy
Nilson? No, I'm pretty sure it was you).
>
> But once you start posting it, it becomes "libel". However,
> the straw-man remark seems to be of sufficiently light-hearted
> nature that I won't take offense.
>
Thank you for noticing the "smiley". In my posts, it's a dead
giveaway that I'm joking.
>>
>> Mormons, OTOH, are unsympathetic to Jeff's view.
>> In fact, I think it puts us /below/ the animals,
>> because pottery is incapable of thought and emotion.
>> Pottery is incapable of prayer, or of receiving
>> answers to prayer.
>
> You can't seriously think that this is actually my "view",
> can you?
>
Actually, no. That's why I put the word "I think" at the front of
the sentence, as opposed to "Jeff thinks". But I'm knowingly painting a
caracature that is as outrageous as the ones that our critics generally
paint of us (THIS is what Mormons /really/ believe ...) My apologies.
>
> If you actually do, then allow me to correct you. If you
> didn't seriously think that to begin with, then shame on you.
>
> As I said, the Potter-clay analogy teaches us *ONE* aspect of
> our relationship with God, namely that He is the Creator, we
> are the created, and we are not like Him, "species-wise".
>
> There is nothing in the context of any of the Potter-clay
> references to teach that we are unable to communicate with
> Him, or to be *ADOPTED* by Him, or to share in Him.
>
Granted. But it makes us sound, IMHO, more like favoured pets than
anything else.
>>
>> We believe that we are sons and daughters of God,
>> created in His image
>
> Yes, *created*, not "begotten". That's a significant point.
>
It is significant in LDS theology, as well - but in a completely
different way. We see Christ as the biological son of God, though we
have no official doctrine on how conception might have taken place
(despite of what our 11th grade seminary teacher may have told us ;)
While we are ALL spirit sons and daughters of our Father in Heaven,
none of us are the biological child of our Father in Heaven. Christ is
the "only begotten of the Father".
>>
>> (what clay pot or even animal can make that statement?).
>
> Well, if a Potter made an image of Himself out of clay,
> then... But the minor flaw in this argument is that a human
> potter doesn't have the ability to animate his clay image,
> nor to adopt it into his family.
>
But our Celestial "potter" is omnipotent, is He not? Does He not
have the power not only animate and adopt the "earthenware pots" He
makes into His family, but also invest us with His glory and make us of
the same species? We apologists often hear the "Mormon god isn't very
powerful ..." argument; doesn't this "potter/pot" line of thought limit
God as you see Him?
Old Gepetto, the puppet maker, could only create a wooden puppet, no
matter how hard he tried. The supernatural power that interviened
turned Pinocchio into the same species as Gepetto. Is not God as
powerful as the supernatural power of this beloved fairy tale?
>
> As even Adrian will attest to, and support me on, analogies
> are not always perfect, nor are they always intended to be.
>
And this seems to be Bad Analogy Week on a.r.m. It always is when I
start posting ;)
>>
>> Sons and daughters, not only in the spiritual sense,
>> but also in the sense that we have chosen to be part
>> of the "family" of God by accepting Christ
>
> Again, "chosen" is a key point here.
>
Agreed.
>
> When a couple gets pregnant, as they "beget" a child, how
> do they "choose" it? How do they "choose" what sex it will
> be, what colour eyes it will have, or anything else about
> it? They *don't*. They get what they get, there is no
> "choice" involved.
>
Essentially correct. I hear tell that there are methods that can
skew the outcome of the sex, but (as at least one wag has suggested)
they only work about half the time.
>
> The only time a "choice" can be involved, is when your
> family comes to you through *ADOPTION*:
>
Or the other way around, which is more to the point. We choose to be
part of the family of God; we choose to be one of the children of light
(as opposed to one of the children of this world).
<snip Rom 8:15, Gal 4:5 and Eph 1:5>
>>
>> We are no more "strangers and foreigners, but
>> fellow-citizens with the saints" and members of the
>> "houshold of God."
>
> Only through "adoption". (See above.)
>
Agreed. But why is this significant? ITMSOT, the fact that we're
spirit sons and daughters of Christ gives us the potential to be
adopted back into the family. We didn't choose to be spirit sons and
daughters of our Heavenly Father. We /do/ choose to be adopted into the
"household of God".
>>
>> I think that the best answer to Jeff's Old
>> Testament "potter" scriptures (the ones he claims
>> all of us Mormunz are afraid to answer) comes from
>> Revelation:
>>
>> "To him who is victorious, to him who
>> perseveres in doing my will to the end,
>> I will give authority over the nations
>> - that same authority which I received
>> from my Father - and [quoting Psalm 2:9]
>> he shall rule them with an iron rod,
>> smashing them to bits like earthenware"
>> -- Rev.2:26-27
>
> Okay, so please explain to me how this is "the best answer"?
> What does it mean?
>
Shows that we have the potential to become as God is - not because
we can do it to ourselves, but because God will give us that authority.
Besides, it contains the nifty imagery of clay pots being done away
with.
>
> How does it in any way negate the following Scriptures?:
>
> Isa. 29:16, 41:25, 64:8, Jer. 18:6, Rom. 9:21
>
They all speak to current state. Revelation speaks to our potential.
Yours are all Old Testament (excluding Romans), mine is New Testament.
>
> Exactly why do you think that the 'best answer' to respond
> to the context of a particular passage, is to simply quote
> a completely different passage in a completely different book?!
>
They're all in the same book. It's called the Bible.
<remainder snipped>
bestRegards,
Guy R. Briggs
>> God. References to God as our Father in heaven are
>> too numerous to mention,
>
> Our *adopted* Father in heaven:
>
in the Church, to avoid confusion) is the father of our spirits. ALL of
our spirits. There is no adoption, nor was there any choice on our
part. Christ, OTOH, is our adoptive father. We choose to make Him the
Lord of our lives and to take upon ourselves His name (hence the term
"Christian"). In this, there is a choice.