- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hmmm. no, i don’t agree that god is omni-anything. Unfortunately, neoplatonism is alive and well in both christanity and mormonism. i will just leave it at that.
As I said, wayfarer, with the disclaimers making it “as _______ as is possible”, I can agree – since that really isn’t “omni” anything. Old-Timer wrote:As I said, wayfarer, with the disclaimers making it “as _______ as is possible”, I can agree – since that really isn’t “omni” anything.
What? That is lawyer talk.
🙂 Playing both sides of the field tonight I think?No, cwald. Not at all. There is NO lawyer-speak in what I wrote. None. Nada. Frankly, this is an example of what I preach about constantly here and other places – the importance of not rejecting what someone says by jumping to conclusions about what is assumed to be coming. Read what Shawn actually wrote. He used the term I quoted, and all I said is that I can agree with the way he altered the traditional meaning of the words he used. The following are exact quotes:
Quote:Omniscience
God has all knowledge that is possible to possess.
Quote:Omnipotence
God has all power that is possible to possess.
The description of omni-present also doesn’t mean how it is used in the purest linguistic translation. It doesn’t mean present everywhere in person and form. It means, essentially, present in influence.
No lawyer-speak. All I said is that I can agree with a definition of omni-whatever that is limited to “all that is possible”.
Okay. Geez cwald…you so long winded… give someone else a chance. 
johnh wrote:Geez cwald…you so long winded… give someone else a chance.
Yeah. My bad.
our belief (or knowledge) relative to god may be categorized into three semantics: 1. belief about god. this is to talk about god’s attributes. it is to make claims about the nature of god.
2. belief in god. this is to trust in god, however s/he is defined by you.
3. believing god. this is to say that i accept that the teachings, inspiration, or revelation i accept as coming from god are normatively true, and thus I am willing to apply in my life.
Let’s take cwald as a metaphor for god for a moment.
I really don’t know much about cwald. In fact, I know very little about him, nor do I care. He has, however, been a trustworthy friend and is someone I trust…I believe in cwald. as well, because i trust and believe in cwald, when he tells me i have done something wrong, i believe him, and try to make amends.
i have faith in cwald…perhaps a wayfaring fool’s faith, because i really don’t know much about him. The believe or know things about cwald is quite distinct from knowing him personally and believing in him.
in like manner, I really don’t know much about god. Having tested out various definitions of god as Alma encourages us to do, I find te vast majority of definitions about god to be absurd and not true. Yet, for whatever reason, i believe in god, and when i receive inspiration, i tend to believe god as well, and try to act on it. i strongly beilieve that faith has absolutely nothing to do with belief about god.
there are many fantastic claims about god, many of which come from the platonic concept of the ideal — that since there are powrful beings, there must be a being that is the ideal of powerful: an all powerful / omnipotent god. — that since there are knowledgeable beings, then there must be an ideal of knowledgeable: an all knowing / omniscient god. — that since there are good beings, then there must be an ideal of the good: an omnibenevolent god.
The good news is that Joseph Smith, in rejecting the creeds, rejected the platonic heresy, the apostate view of an impossible god definition. Instead, he completely humanized god, and declared an existential worldview completely rejecting platonism: “there is no such thing as immaterial material’. Materialism — not the worldly pursuit of riches, but rather, a real, concrete definition of divine nature within the realm of natural law, would temporarily replace the idea of an ideal god. Yet, in an effort to be more christian than the christians, Mormons, today, unthinkingly adopt the creedal omni-whatever and deny their faith in an exalted, human god.
plato’s world was one of gods and fate that dictated every action. the physical world is but a shadow…therefore by mortifying the flesh, considering man to be inherently evil, and that only the uncreated ideal god is “perfect”, we anchor and link to that ideal to be saved. the concept of a infinite deterministic world is logically impossible, as well, virtually all scriptural definitions of things about god come from a worldview that no longer is viable. This is why I propose that “we” know very little about god.
but there is something very powerful within me that tells me that god is there — god, a power greater than myself and not my conscious ego, is tangible and real to me. i have come to believe in that god, and i work on believing him or her, following the best i can and failing every day. i can assure ou that as powerful as is my testimony of that god, i have an equally powerful testimony that i know nothing about god, except what i have observed personally, and that all the scriptural definitions an prophetic speculations about god are irrelevant and likely wrong.
yeah, i take christ at his word when he says that mankind can be gods to he extent they are “one with”. that means, to me, that god is not so much as a single being, but rather god is a being in the moment and mode of being in total harmony with what joseph smith defined as “the power of god”: natural law. if there is a being called “Heavenly Father” — and Mormon faith claims that there is — then Heavenly Father is a man who is one with the power of god. no more, no less. He operates in total unity with natural law. again, though, we are making a claim here about god — and the claim is irrelevant. it simply doesn’t matter.
What matters is what we do with our faith in god. if we realize that oneness is the essential attribute of god, then our “faith” — our belief/trust in god, and believing god, means we try to be one: we unify our conscious mind with the non-conscious god within, by stilling the rages of of our unchecked ego and listening to the still, small, voice. when we seek harmony with those around us and serve them without expectations, we are gods in that if we are tned in, we can answer prayers, by serving relevantly and lovingly.
The revealing presence of the god within is, to me, the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the restoration in these latter days. Paul did not learn about Christ. The Christ revealed himself to Paul’s mind and heart. James didn’t care what one believed, it was faith sanctified by action (works) that mattered. The rock was not Peter, but rather, the Rock is the act of revelation to the mind and heart that Jesus is the Christ. Nothing about christ matters except this one sublime truth.
The key to the restoration was a categorical rejection of creeds and the restoration of revelation. When we return to the creeds and the absurd, impossible definition of an omni-what-have-you god they embody, we deny the Living Christ: the Way, the Truth, and the Life: the I AM–to be fully and authentically in the present, one with the god within and with all that is.
God’s definition of perfection as defined in Matthew 5, is not the omni-whatever, nor is it flawlessness. It is about oneness with the god-self and others. To know god is life eternal, “this is life eternal: to know god and Jesus Christ”. Not to know about them.
wayfarer wrote:…I really don’t know much about god.
Having tested out various definitions of god as Alma encourages us to do, I find te vast majority of definitions about god to be absurd and not true…there are many fantastic claims about god, many of which come from the platonic concept of the ideal — that since there are powrful beings, there must be a being that is the ideal of powerful: an all powerful / omnipotent god. — that since there are knowledgeable beings, then there must be an ideal of knowledgeable: an all knowing / omniscient god. — that since there are good beings, then there must be an ideal of the good: an omnibenevolent god… The good news is that Joseph Smith, in rejecting the creeds, rejected the platonic heresy, the apostate view of an impossible god definition. Instead, he completely humanized god, and declared an existential worldview completely rejecting platonism: “there is no such thing as immaterial material’…in an effort to be more christian than the christians, Mormons, today, unthinkingly adopt the creedal omni-whatever and deny their faith in an exalted, human god…the concept of a infinite deterministic world is logically impossible, as well, virtually all scriptural definitions of things about god come from a worldview that no longer is viable.I don’t see what is so absurd or impossible about it. The traditional view of God is basically like a logical extension of the idea of man himself. For example, if people are already more intelligent than animals with accumulated knowledge built up over long periods of time then it makes sense that there could theoretically be a god that is more intelligent and knowledgeable than men out there somewhere regardless of whether he is a resurrected man with a physical body of flesh and bone that lives on Kolob or whether he is a spirit that lives in some kind of spiritual dimension outside of and completely separate from time and space. So God is supposedly similar to men but better in every imaginable way.
If many people long for more justice than what we typically see in everyday life then it makes perfect sense that they would hope for a god that has the power to make things right if not in this life then at least in the hereafter. Beyond wishful thinking many people continue to have experiences that appear to suggest (to them at least) that God exists completely outside of their own mind regardless of any specifics of what exactly he is like. If you can’t wrap your head around the traditional view of God it doesn’t mean that no one else can either or that it will necessarily be easier for the majority to accept your idea of God over the traditional view that has already been around for thousands of years with no sign of going away anytime soon.
Devil, there is wisdom in what you say…something in my mind just went *click*…I need to think about it some more…. Thanks!
Thanks DA. I also think your comment merits a second read…and I am a wayists. 
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
johnh wrote:Devil,
there is wisdom in what you say…something in my mind just went *click*…I need to think about it some more…. Thanks!
cwald wrote:Thanks DA. I also think your comment merits a second read…and I am a wayists…
Thanks guys. I like wayfarer as much as anyone and I appreciate hearing his comments even if I don’t always agree with what he says. The main point I was trying to make is that there’s a reason why a certain view of God has been so popular for thousands of years with only minor changes. To me this says that in the very least the traditional idea of God makes perfect sense to many if not the majority of people even now and that’s why I don’t think calling it absurd (ridicule) is a very fair description.
Also, just because Plato said some things that are very similar to what we hear in Christianity hundreds of years before the time of Christ that doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong and a corrupt outside influence. Maybe Plato had the right idea all along. I’m not a huge Plato fan but there’s a difference between not liking Plato’s style or what he had to say and being able to show exactly why he was wrong (if he was wrong) in a way that isn’t simply a matter of taste or a case of tearing down a straw man and misunderstanding what he really meant.
For example, some people don’t like Plato because he criticized democracy and claimed that aristocracy was the ideal form of government. However, he wasn’t necessarily talking about what we think about with these terms. When we hear the word aristocracy we often have the tendency to associate it with people being born into a position of wealth and privilege but to him the term literally meant that ideally the best (competent, wise, principled, etc.) men should govern. When I look at it that way then I don’t really have a problem with that if there was any practical way to consistently ensure that the best possible politicians would somehow end up in power instead of the most popular, ambitious, self-serving, etc.
Ray wrote:As I said, wayfarer, with the disclaimers making it “as _______ as is possible”, I can agree – since that really isn’t “omni” anything.
If God has all knowledge that is possible to possess, then it is not possible to have more knowledge. Unless he should have some knowledge that does not exist, he is omniscient.God has all power that is possible to possess. Would he be more powerful if he could drink, swear, steal, lie, stomp around the universe kicking planets into black holes for sport, or engage in any manner of tomfoolery? I don’t think so. God is not lacking in any good or desirable quality. He really is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Perhaps the word “omnipotent” was never supposed to mean that God could do
anything. God can’t lie – sort of. Consider what Talmage wrote about Christ:
Quote:He had the capacity, the ability to sin had He willed so to do. Had He been bereft of the faculty to sin, He would have been shorn of His free agency; and it was to safeguard and insure the agency of man that He had offered Himself, before the world was, as a redeeming sacrifice. To say that
He could not sin because He was the embodiment of righteousnessis no denial of His agency of choice between evil and good. A thoroughly truthful man cannot culpably lie; nevertheless his insurance against falsehood is not that of external compulsion, but of internal restraint due to his cultivated companionship of the spirit of truth. A really honest man will neither take nor covet his neighbor’s goods, indeed it may be said that he cannot steal; yet he is capable of stealing should he so elect (Jesus the Christ, c. 10). Of course, it’s okay for us to present our views on this forum, but I am concerned when someone else is misrepresented, as I believe to be the case here:
Wayfarer wrote:there are many fantastic claims about god, many of which come from the platonic concept of the ideal — that since there are powrful beings, there must be a being that is the ideal of powerful: an all powerful / omnipotent god. — that since there are knowledgeable beings, then there must be an ideal of knowledgeable: an all knowing / omniscient god. — that since there are good beings, then there must be an ideal of the good: an omnibenevolent god.
The good news is that Joseph Smith, in rejecting the creeds, rejected the platonic heresy, the apostate view of an impossible god definition. Instead, he completely humanized god, and declared an existential worldview completely rejecting platonism: “there is no such thing as immaterial material’. Materialism — not the worldly pursuit of riches, but rather, a real, concrete definition of divine nature within the realm of natural law, would temporarily replace the idea of an ideal god. Yet, in an effort to be more christian than the christians, Mormons, today, unthinkingly adopt the creedal omni-whatever and deny their faith in an exalted, human god.
First, I think the word “creed” has an undeserved bad rap around here. There are different kinds of creeds. Obviously, the Nicene Creed and others like it are false and should be rejected. The word can be used to describe the whole belief system of a church, which is why Joseph could say “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight.” The word can also refer to a simple statement of faith or belief, like “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” and “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” So, it can be said that Joseph also established and/or restored correct creeds.If Joseph Smith rejected “the apostate view of an impossible god definition” -that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent – then he rejected his own work and teachings. That simply is not the case. He had a very large role in publishing the Book of Mormon, which teaches:
Quote:“the Lord is able to do all things according to his will” -1 Ne. 7:12
“But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.” -2 Ne. 2:24
“God … knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows” -2 Ne. 9:20
“Lord knoweth all things which are to come” -W of M 1:7
“Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.” -Mosiah 4:9
“the Lord saw fit in his infinite mercy to spare them” -Mosiah 28:4
“full of grace, equity, and truth, full of patience, mercy, and long-suffering” -Alma 9:26
“my joy is carried away, even unto boasting in my God; for he has all power, all wisdom, and all understanding; he comprehendeth all things” -Alma 26:35
“a perfect, just God, and a merciful God” Alma 42:15
“And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.” -Mormon 8:17
“And I know, O Lord, that thou hast all power, and can do whatsoever thou wilt for the benefit of man” -Ether 3:4
“For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting” -Moroni 7:22
In the Doctrine and Covenants, we find words recorded or dictated by Joseph Smith himself:
Quote:“The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes” -D&C 38:2
“Behold, and hearken unto the voice of him who has all power, who is from everlasting to everlasting, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.” -D&C 61:1
“He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth” D&C 88:6
Though much of the wording of the Lectures on Faith cannot be attributed to Joseph, he was heavily involved in the project. It says:
Quote:We here observe that God is the only supreme governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnicient; without beginning of days or end of life…
Having shown in the third lecture, that correct ideas of the character of God are necessary in order to the exercise of faith in him unto life and salvation, and that without correct ideas of his character, the minds of men could not have sufficient power with God to the exercise of faith necessary to the enjoyment of eternal life, and that correct ideas of his character lay a foundation as far as his character is concerned, for the exercise of faith, so as to enjoy the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even that of eternal glory; we shall now proceed to show the connection there is between correct ideas of the attributes of God, and the exercise of faith in him unto eternal life.
I listed all of those things (and there are many more), even though all of us have read them before, to clearly show that Joseph taught that it is important to learn about God and that He is omnipotent and omniscient. Everyone is free to accept or reject such teachings, but let’s not misrepresent what Joseph taught.Sorry Shawn, but I disagree with your conclusion. And that is okay. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.