The Origin and Literal Fatherhood of God

[_Coggins7]

JAK said:

Only by establishing each claim with the evidence required for academic reliability essential for any claim today can one build upon the first claim.

amantha:

This is why this thread must ultimately devolve into the inevitable spiritual witness discussion.

“Spiritual witness” is unreliable. If your analysis is correct, amantha, the thread is dissolved now.

JAK

Thanks for sharing. I guess the thread is now closed. JAK said so.

[_truth dancer]

The idea that God is a man makes no sense to me at all.

in my opinion, it doesn't fit with evolutionary theory, my experience of reality, nor does it remotely seem possible, plausible, or rational.

I know it may be my inability to make sense of it but the way I see it, we evolved as we did because of our very particular world/environment. I just can't imagine that there would be another world exactly as our Earth; where evolution happened exactly as did life on our planet.

And even if it did, the idea that God looks (and acts), like a man from this little brief moment of life again makes no sense. Our species is quite new and could very well evolve for thousands or millions of years. The thought that God is like a man at our moment of human history baffles my mind. Another few million years and I am pretty certain humans will be quite different.

Our form is based on the needs of humans to survive on our particular earth, so why in the world (smile) would God need our form? Our form pretty much came from fish. :-) Somehow it just seems to me that if there is a God this God would be WAY beyond anything we could imagine or comprehend, let alone similar to us.

Of course I could be wrong. ;-)

~dancer~

[_JAK]

JAK said:

Only by establishing each claim with the evidence required for academic reliability essential for any claim today can one build upon the first claim.

amantha:

This is why this thread must ultimately devolve into the inevitable spiritual witness discussion.

“Spiritual witness” is unreliable. If your analysis is correct, amantha, the thread is dissolved now.

JAK

Thanks for sharing. I guess the thread is now closed. JAK said so.

Coggins,

Your continued misrepresentation of the very words before you speaks volumes about you.

You even post them then distort them.

My response was to amantha first based on her comment.

And what I stated and you have quoted correctly but misrepresented in your comment was this:

“Spiritual witness” is unreliable. If your analysis is correct, amantha, the thread is dissolved now.

Do you see the if clause? I did not state your misrepresentation here.

Just why do you do that? You would be destroyed in a public debate where everyone could hear your distortions and misrepresentations.

I addressed your original post. You have made no effort to respond to that address. No, instead you substitute personal attack for the address of issues raised and which I addressed as has amantha and beastie.

JAK

[Guest]

To be frank, I think that LDS who balk at accepting "god was once a man" are twisting LDS theology in an attempt to make it more accommodating to mainstream christian theology.

Would you think this is what Ostler is trying to do, or is his problem with the doctrine strictly philosophical in nature?

That's exactly what Ostler is trying to do and his problem with the doctrine is "strictly philosophical" in nature. In other words, Ostler is rather taken by the building blocks of Christian theology (Aristotle and all that which is contradicted by the infinite regress of exalted men) and then looks for ways to reinterpred LDS doctrine to make it look normal within that scope.

Hiis problem with the doctrine is philosophical in nature precisely because he's convinced of the mainstream Christian theological basics.

[_harmony]

JAK said:

Only by establishing each claim with the evidence required for academic reliability essential for any claim today can one build upon the first claim.

amantha:

This is why this thread must ultimately devolve into the inevitable spiritual witness discussion.

“Spiritual witness” is unreliable. If your analysis is correct, amantha, the thread is dissolved now.

JAK

Good grief. Could you two simply argue the premise of the thread, and not turn every thread you participate on into you holding forth about the impossibility of determining if God exists? Don't you get it? We don't care if you think God doesn't exist. We do. Our basic cognitions start there. Yours don't. Big deal. We know that. So either discuss the premise of the thread as presented or don't get into the discussion.

In case you didn't get it from the OP, this thread is about the King Follett discourse. So comments about the existence or nonexistence of God are off topic. Loran actually posted a thread worth discussing, so take your off topic comments somewhere else, please!

[Guest]

God, whether capitalized or not, is a word. What that word means is subject to vast degrees of interpretation. Many people would have us believe that not only do they know what the word god means, but that they also know what this god wants. The people who make this claim ultimately default to the wholly empirical position that their subjective witness is the standard by which this the definition of god can be known as can the personal will of this being.

The offer is then made that an equally potent subjective experience may stand as evidence for the same definition.

I will show throughout my posts here that this unlikely scenario is not only highly improbable but effectually impossible due to the inherent fallibility of human nature, regardless of the supposed nature of the infallibility of a god, which is generally inferred by the definition proffered by the authors of said definition.

Those who have dared to define the term "god" have frequently been able to control the masses through their definition. This authorship of the term "god" bequeaths authority to the authors by fiat of those who want to believe the definition. A DE - FINIT - ION is "of the finite" and therefore does a poor job of describing the infinite which is what a definition of "god" attempts to do. The result is a paradox.

Paradoxes are not amenable to certainty.

It may also be argued that god cannot fail to communicate her nature to the fallible creature. This is potentially true. But it is also true that a fallible creature cannot fail to fail unless she ceases to be fallible. And if she ceases to be fallible only for the period of communing with god, she must then return to her fallible state and therefore return to the possibility of failing to comprehend the infallible communication. The only way the fallible creature can comprehend the infallible communique is to remain infallible with regard to the communique. The paradox rears its ugly head again. The fallible creature can never be certain, it must simply have faith and believe--which is a choice. The paradox is not amenable to certainty on this point. Thus the argument for permanently knowing the definition of the infinite is debunked.

There is no definition of the infinite. There is only an infinition of the infinite.

Always learning, never coming to a knowledge of the truth..

Your parsing of words about what the word god means is silly.

God, the Person, is our Heavenly Father. Flesh and bones. Once mortal. Now immortal. There isn't any goofiness about trying to define god. And as many people who want to argue about it, and how any angels can fit on the head of a pin, you can sit there on your sit and spins and talk yourselves wobbly. It does't change a thing.

On what basis do you claim to know that "God, the Person,[your] Heavenly Father" has flesh and bones, was once mortal and is now immortal?

The above post does not make an argument based in evidence, it merely makes a baseless claim--a testimony of sorts. What is the evidence of this claim?

[_JAK]

The idea that God is a man makes no sense to me at all.

in my opinion, it doesn't fit with evolutionary theory, my experience of reality, nor does it remotely seem possible, plausible, or rational.

I know it may be my inability to make sense of it but the way I see it, we evolved as we did because of our very particular world/environment. I just can't imagine that there would be another world exactly as our Earth; where evolution happened exactly as did life on our planet.

And even if it did, the idea that God looks (and acts), like a man from this little brief moment of life again makes no sense. Our species is quite new and could very well evolve for thousands or millions of years. The thought that God is like a man at our moment of human history baffles my mind. Another few million years and I am pretty certain humans will be quite different.

Our form is based on the needs of humans to survive on our particular earth, so why in the world (smile) would God need our form? Our form pretty much came from fish. :-) Somehow it just seems to me that if there is a God this God would be WAY beyond anything we could imagine or comprehend, let alone similar to us.

Of course I could be wrong. ;-)

~dancer~

TD states:

The idea that God is a man makes no sense to me at all.

Attempting to make sense out of religious myth is not very useful, TD

TD states:
in my opinion, it doesn't fit with evolutionary theory, my experience of reality, nor does it remotely seem possible, plausible, or rational.

Well of course it does not. Don’t lose sight of the principle here that truth by assertion fails. It is and has been religious myth which must adjust to scientific discovery. It does not happen the other way around. That is, science does not conform or comply with religious claim.

First the gods then God (an evolution of religious doctrine) was invented by man in man’s image. That is inclusive of emotions, as well as appearance, and masculinity.

JAK

[_Scottie]

I don't believe God exists, but I will pretend for a moment to answer the question...

Given the cruel nature of God, I can't see how God once existed on an Earth similar to ours, learned love and compassion and ascended into Godhood.

Take the late President Hinckley. A pillar of kindness and compassion. He loved all the worlds people. Yet, this was still an imperfect man who will still have to grow in the afterlife to attain godhood. So, we must believe that he can become even more loving and compassionate than he already was, hard as it is to believe. Can you imagine the current GBH destroying an entire people for not worshiping him, let alone a much improved god version of GBH? I certainly can't. This is why I don't believe Elohim ever came to Earth and learned any of the human traits like kindness, love and compassion. He is quick to anger and swift in His wrath. He is kind of a spoiled brat, in a way.

I see Him as an eternal being who never had to struggle through human experiences. He has no empathy what-so-ever.

I believe this is why Jesus will judge us. Since he lived a human life, he has the unique empathy required to be able to understand the frailties of humans. God simply cannot understand these because He has never been human.

[_amantha]

JAK said:

Only by establishing each claim with the evidence required for academic reliability essential for any claim today can one build upon the first claim.

amantha:

This is why this thread must ultimately devolve into the inevitable spiritual witness discussion.

“Spiritual witness” is unreliable. If your analysis is correct, amantha, the thread is dissolved now.

JAK

You are correct. The only discussion which can be had is concerning the reliability of the personal witness. The personal witness is not a reliable concept since it ultimately devolves into an irresolvable paradox which only lends itself to uncertainty not certainty.

[_Coggins7]

The idea that God is a man makes no sense to me at all.

in my opinion, it doesn't fit with evolutionary theory, my experience of reality, nor does it remotely seem possible, plausible, or rational.

I know it may be my inability to make sense of it but the way I see it, we evolved as we did because of our very particular world/environment. I just can't imagine that there would be another world exactly as our Earth; where evolution happened exactly as did life on our planet.

And even if it did, the idea that God looks (and acts), like a man from this little brief moment of life again makes no sense. Our species is quite new and could very well evolve for thousands or millions of years. The thought that God is like a man at our moment of human history baffles my mind. Another few million years and I am pretty certain humans will be quite different.

Our form is based on the needs of humans to survive on our particular earth, so why in the world (smile) would God need our form? Our form pretty much came from fish. :-) Somehow it just seems to me that if there is a God this God would be WAY beyond anything we could imagine or comprehend, let alone similar to us.

Of course I could be wrong. ;-)

From this, it appears that your acceptance or nonacceptance of the Gospel's concept of God is entirely predicated upon your own perceptual embeddedness in the physical world and would therefore be conditioned by any perceptual limitations inherent in that reality.

Hence, you ask why God would need to look like us, while ignoring the possibility that it is we who must look like him because we are of the same species and kind. You seem to be assuming that God came from us, rather than the other way around, which is what the Gospel claims.

Our species is quite new? How do you know this? On this world its new, but this says nothing about the cosmos as a whole. The Gospel deals with the whole, not just aspects of the whole.

How we evolved here, and the extent to which we did, tells us nothing regarding the template or pattern upon which we are based, which is, according to LDS theology, an eternal template, God himself, and Jesus Christ, being the ultimate forms of that template.