The Origin and Literal Fatherhood of God

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Is it settled, uncontroversial doctrine for most Saints?


For many, yes.

Is it unofficial doctrine, but yet considered "orthodox" and for all intents and purposes, a fundamental Gospel principle?


Yes.

Is it a theory or speculation?


Yes.

(smile)

My observation is that it is like many other doctrines/teachings/beliefs in the LDS church. It is believed by most, considered official doctrine by many, but very much open to the "just opinion" file. As this belief becomes less and less comfortable I think it will (rightly so perhaps), go the way of the Adam/God doctrine.

Further light and knowledge could come forth at any time.

It just seems like the church leaders are going with the "we don't know much about this" position. I think it is a good and honest move actually.

When beliefs conflict with science they seem to be dropped, when doctrine conflicts with the collective morality of society they seem to be dismissed.

Since the KFD is not official scripture I think anyone who finds it lacking can put it aside and not worry about it.

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

I find the continuity of the doctrine to be of supreme importance. In much of religious theology in other religions, God is alone in an immensitv that extends beyond the universe. His actions are always seen as random, often capricious.

Knowing God is a part of an ordelry universe (and beyond) makes intuitive sense.
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Why Definitions Are Essential

Post by _JAK »

Coggins7 wrote:And yes, JAK, you should begin discussion the subject matter of the thread, as should Amantha. Even though I've responded to both, the we have already moved away from the OP.


One could do that, however the title of this thread is “The Origin and Literal Fatherhood of God”

Given that title, it is incumbent on the one assigning the title to define the terms of the topic. I’m pressing for those definitions by the original poster of the thread.

What is meant by “God”?
That term is in the statement.

What’s the distinction of “Fatherhood” as stated?

That term is in the statement. What does it mean?

It appears to mean that “God” (whatever that is as yet undefined) has a father. It’s the implication and we have some concept of father which is specific in heredity of humans and other species (race horses, for example).

If that’s the case that “God” has a father, what is the evidence for the claim?
So you see, amantha and I are right on target for the topic. We are asking for clarity of topic statement.

If the claim is that the claimed “God” has a father, what’s the implied claim for the father of the father of “God”?.

Again, we are exactly on topic as we ask those making multiple claims to clarify what they’re talking about. Otherwise the statement of topic is meaningless. One who makes the claim can just willy nilly make up anything. What do we have then? We have a fairy tale, a myth, an assertion.

It becomes nonsense and double-talk.

Now what is the meaning of “Literal”? I know what the word means in standard usage as I’m sure amantha does. However, in the context of this topic, it has no meaning, not even muddy. Does it contrast with figurative fatherhood?

What’s the alternative to “Literal Fatherhood of God” as expressed in the topic?

These questions are all entirely relevant to the topic.

Absent clear and articulated definitions by the author of the topic, there is no rational discussion. There might be an irrational series of speculations in which the speculator assumes or projects his own notions into all the terms to which I call for definition.

But the discussion would be both meaningless and pointless.

So, if you want honest intellectual consideration of the topic, definitions are essential.

JAK
_Imwashingmypirate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:45 pm

Post by _Imwashingmypirate »

Erm, where did my post go?
Just punched myself on the face...
_amantha
_Emeritus
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:15 am

Post by _amantha »

What's with the vanishing posts? I lost my post.
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

amantha wrote:What's with the vanishing posts? I lost my post.


As in, you lost your post just now when you hit "Submit"?
_Imwashingmypirate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:45 pm

Post by _Imwashingmypirate »

I posted it, I viewed it, I looked for it a bit later and I lost it.
Just punched myself on the face...
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

A Larger Perspective

Post by _JAK »

charity wrote:I find the continuity of the doctrine to be of supreme importance. In much of religious theology in other religions, God is alone in an immensitv that extends beyond the universe. His actions are always seen as random, often capricious.

Knowing God is a part of an ordelry universe (and beyond) makes intuitive sense.


Charity,

The problem with your dialogue is that you continually return to the same claim for which you offer no evidence, let alone compelling evidence.

In virtually every post, you make some reference to God as if that entity or notion were an established fact. It’s not an established fact.

Now as you accuse some of being singular in challenge, we are challenging you to produce that compelling evidence for those extraordinary claims.

You can’t do it. So long as you set forward the same claims, we who challenge you will ask the same questions.

What you have is religious mythology. You’re not presenting evidence or fact. It’s a willy nilly, loose nonsense absent intellectual rigor.

While you may dislike questions repeated, your only escape from that in any academic discussion is to move beyond ancient myth which claims truth by assertion. It’s 2008, and the intelligence and information and education now available is going to challenge ancient myth as reliable explanation.

The evidence for “the universe” as “orderly” is not as you suppose. I’ll provide you with a couple of links. It would not be possible to write here details of a chaotic universe. Our own weather patterns demonstrate that with droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc.

Amid the Universe’s Chaos

Chaos Frees Universe

Essentially, there is apparent chaos in the universe. It took 14.7 billion years for this planet to become what it is today with its beginning some 4.7 billion years ago. Millions of species have come and gone (scientific documentation can be provided). We humans as a species are late arrivals to life forms here. And the dinosaur (multiple species) occupied the planet for 165 million years before becoming extinct 65 million years ago. (I only mention the dinosaur because the species is so well documented and yet is one of millions of smaller even single-celled life forms.)

There is every evidence that we humans will become extinct. We know (science) that the sun which provides environment for life is terminal. That is, it will not “burn” indefinitely. However, it is far more likely that the human species will be terminated long before the sun no longer supports life forms on the earth.

Lest you ask how all this is relevant, it’s relevant in this way. All the events of the universe, all the billions and billions of suns (stars) much like our sun have no relevance to the human inventions of gods.

The myths which grew out of superstitions demonstrate no need for gods of any sort. And science ignores god myths as it pursues information, evidence, and tiny detail as well as large views of the universe (Hubble Telescope).

So while you find religious myth “extremely important,” science does not. God myths emerged and developed in ancient cultures/civilizations as an attempt to explain. Of course they didn’t explain and don’t explain today. But they are a remnant from earlier human civilizations and cultures.

While apparently beyond your grasp, the dynamic discoveries made in just the past hundred years place ancient myths as residue from primitive speculation.

I understand that those indoctrinated in some myth or other find it difficult if not impossible to shed their child-rearing. Modern politicians (particularly in the US) capitalize on snippets of religious myths and use them for political purposes, the taking of power. That fact does not give the fundamentalists like Huckabee (for example) credible God platforms. But, if we can recognize anything in humans, it is that they tend to be gullible.

JAK
_ozemc
_Emeritus
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by _ozemc »

truth dancer wrote: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~


I'm definitely more inclined to your way of thinking, TD!

I look in the heavens and see light coming from the middle of our own galaxy that started coming this way 26,000 years ago, in the middle of the last ice age.

I look at the Hubble Deep Field picture and see thousands of galaxies where it didn't look like there was anything.

We look as far as we can, somewhere around 14 billion light years away, and even that is probably not the real distance, because the whole time that light was traveling, everything was moving away from everything else.

The idea that "God", or whatever you want to call the supreme intelligence, if there is one (I do believe there is), would be a man-like creature, or even used to be a man at some point, is, to me, very limiting to a "God" that creates such a magnificient universe.

As you noted, we are a relatively young species. Why wouldn't "God", if he wanted to look like part of his creation, take the form of a species that has been around much longer, from, say, a much older civilization? One that's been around for 2 million years, maybe?

Why would "God" need to have any form at all? Being "God", wouldn't he (heh ... another human contruct) necessarily NOT need to breathe, eat, etc.? Thus negating the need for a physical form at all.

Anyway, that's my .02
"What does God need with a starship?" - Captain James T. Kirk

Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch. - Robert Orben
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Imwashingmypirate wrote:Erm, where did my post go?


I split the off-topic posts to the Terrestrial Forum.

amantha wrote:What's with the vanishing posts? I lost my post.


I split your post off to the Terrestrial Forum quite by accident. I'm sorry!
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
Post Reply