OT: The Theology Thread

[...]

 

 

So time is sentient?

 

Time is a quality, it can't be sentient.

[Taro T]

 

 

This takes God in a different direction. He becomes a role model rather than some omniscient being, no?

Could one hope for any more from a loving, omniscient being? Isn't being a role model an awesome thing?

[frissonic]

This takes God in a different direction. He becomes a role model rather than some omniscient being, no?

Are the two mutually exclusive for God? ;)

[darksabre]

 

 

Time is a quality, it can't be sentient.

 

So God is qualitative. Not a being, just a way of adding value?

 

 

Are the two mutually exclusive for God? ;)

 

I think that depends on how one defines God and where he/she/it fits into the universe.

[...]

 

 

So God is qualitative. Not a being, just a way of adding value?

 

 

I feel like I'm trying to get my kids to practice piano the correct way. I'm out, doing that in real life is stressful enough.

[Randall Flagg]

Science is rather dogmatic and self-righteous, you're correct.

I think scientists and people who like to indulge in science for fun can be these things, but I don't see how science itself is dogmatic, or especially self-righteous. It literally is the process of formulating ideas and then attacking them as much as possible to see if they hold up, and using them only if they hold up, but always ready to discard them. Not self-righteous at all IMO.

 

Self-righteousness would be present in the people saying "Look at those idiots and their gOD, gOD isn't real because Carl Sagan said so, and the Big Bang" and whatever.

[darksabre]

 

 

I feel like I'm trying to get my kids to practice piano the correct way. I'm out, doing that in real life is stressful enough.

 

Sorry this is hard for you.

[X. Benedict]

Yup.

 

Anthropomorphic? As in, possessing a human-like body?

[cdexchange]

I think scientists and people who like to indulge in science for fun can be these things, but I don't see how science itself is dogmatic, or especially self-righteous. It literally is the process of formulating ideas and then attacking them as much as possible to see if they hold up, and using them only if they hold up, but always ready to discard them. Not self-righteous at all IMO.

 

Self-righteousness would be present in the people saying "Look at those idiots and their gOD, gOD isn't real because Carl Sagan said so, and the Big Bang" and whatever.

 

Exactly.

[frissonic]

Anthropomorphic? As in, possessing a human-like body?

i look at it the other way: we possess a god-like body until such time that we ourselves actually *are* gods.

[darksabre]

i look at it the other way: we possess a god-like body until such time that we ourselves actually *are* gods.

 

And then we get the virgins right? :P

[...]

I think scientists and people who like to indulge in science for fun can be these things, but I don't see how science itself is dogmatic, or especially self-righteous. It literally is the process of formulating ideas and then attacking them as much as possible to see if they hold up, and using them only if they hold up, but always ready to discard them. Not self-righteous at all IMO.

 

Self-righteousness would be present in the people saying "Look at those idiots and their gOD, gOD isn't real because Carl Sagan said so, and the Big Bang" and whatever.

 

You've never spent time in a university, then.

 

 

i look at it the other way: we possess a god-like body until such time that we ourselves actually *are* gods.

 

That's ridiculous. Matter is an illusion. Physics teaches us that. It might be more accurate to say, and simpler to understand, that we are absorbed by the energy that is called by some "God".

[Randall Flagg]

You've never spent time in a university, then.

 

 

 

I live at one and have parents who've taught at another my whole life, so I'm fairly familiar with what universities entail, and no, the experience hasn't made me think that science in and of itself is self-righteous and dogmatic.

 

edit: can you give me a scenario or something with more detail so I can understand what you mean by this?

Edited December 3, 2014 by Arcsabresfan41

[...]

 

edit: can you give me a scenario or something with more detail so I can understand what you mean by this?

 

Sure, and I believe I owe you that. Just not at the moment as this day has burnt me out. The one obvious example is the "climate change" narrative.

[Randall Flagg]

Sure, and I believe I owe you that. Just not at the moment as this day has burnt me out. The one obvious example is the "climate change" narrative.

Thank you :) And fully understood.

 

I'm not going to take a stance on anything here, but with your example, I hear detractors say that the methods used by researchers have an underlying motive and data and findings are skewed to support a certain viewpoint, and that the science is bad. However, these detractors might say that real science would show that global warming isn't anthropogenic. I feel like disagreeing with an issue like that doesn't attack science, just the improper ways of doing science, and the distortion of facts that science might give.

 

Because in the eyes of science, if the evidence shows that global warming isn't real or isn't anthropogenic, then that is how it is, until something comes along to show otherwise.

 

People with agendas are always ready to twist things to fit it, and science is as convincing to the public as anything else.

[I am Defecting]

Are the two mutually exclusive for God? ;)

 

Well played in general. I am learning a lot about Mormonism. You basically opened the door to Ethics in this thread. I like the dialogue on both sides.

[I am Defecting]

Hey, 6 out of 7. Not bad. It's a good allegory. On that seventh game, he rested. #blueprint

[X. Benedict]

i look at it the other way: we possess a god-like body until such time that we ourselves actually *are* gods.

 

I never quite realized this about Mormonism. Two questions if you will, please.

 

In Mormonism, Is the thought that God the Father is full evolution of the human form?

 

In Mormonism, Is God the Father eternal, or a created being?

Edited December 3, 2014 by X. Benedict

[sabills]

If you accept the bible as being accurate and true (and i realize that for some on here, that's not going to happen, and i understand that), there's a verse in the new testament that, when i first read it, jumped out at me like a mack truck and knocked me for a loop.

 

Read St. John 5. The whole chapter talks about how Jesus healed some guy on the sabbath. This guy couldn't walk. The Jews all had a hissy fit and wanted to kill Jesus. They confronted him in the temple.

 

Then we get to verse 19: Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 

Verse 20 goes on: For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

 

If Christ can do nothing but what he sees God doing, and Jesus has a body even after his resurrection and perfection, then it stands to reason that God also has a body. So whether God has a body or not is one for scriptural debate, but that's my go-to stance when someone argues that God is some ethereal misty blob.

 

So I read these passages in the context of what Sizzle has been saying (or at least how I'm reading it), and it went a different way. If this god, whatever that might entail, IS nature, and space and time and matter and all that, then when Jesus is saying there is that he can only work within the bounds of nature. He wasn't performing something magical, he was using what he learned from watching gods works in the physical world and using them on this man to heal him. There are a lot of mentions in the Bible to Jesus's healing powers; maybe they weren't miracles, but instead he had learned, somehow, medical techniques that were beyond the bounds of any of the rest of his time.

 

I'll admit that I may be shoehorning two theory's together to fit my science-as-religion idea, but it makes some sort of sense. I've also been of the opinion for a while that Jesus did not really believe he was God or the Messiah, but that other people, including his disciples and apostles, put that mantle on him after his death, and this works into that thought as well.

Edited December 3, 2014 by sabills

[dudacek]

What pointless conversation...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....obviously, Zemgus is God.

[X. Benedict]

What pointless conversation...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....obviously, Zemgus is God.

feel free to discuss Zemgus's Divine attributes. :P

[MattPie]

feel free to discuss Zemgus's Divine attributes. :P

 

Being a + player on this team should have him on the fast track to canonization.

[Drunkard]

feel free to discuss Zemgus's Divine attributes. :P

 

I heard he once walked down the street with a ###### ...................there were no survivors.

[frissonic]

I never quite realized this about Mormonism. Two questions if you will, please.

 

In Mormonism, Is the thought that God the Father is full evolution of the human form?

 

In Mormonism, Is God the Father eternal, or a created being?

 

Good questions. Again, to kind of turn it around, I think the full evolution of the human form is that we will become as God is. There's a quote in Mormon-dom that goes something like "As man is, God once was, and as God is, man can become." I know that concept flies in the face of *everything* mainstream christianity teaches, but it is what it is.

 

As for whether God is eternal or created being, my thoughts are that He's eternal, but in the same sense that matter neither is created or destroyed, I guess? It's hard for me to understand a concept as insane as "no beginning/no end," so in my secular mind, I try to tie the two together by saying that God is eternal because the elements that make Him God have been around forever. That's easier for me to understand than "God has been God forever," ya know? I know it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but neither does eternity, in my mind. I mean, plants come from seeds, right? *Babies* come from seeds (if you want to be absolutely technical about it, seed and egg, but whatever). Everything has a beginning. But where does one draw the line in what constitutes a beginning? Have these elements always existed, and therefore we are are ALL eternal? Maybe. Probably.

 

And ... yah.

[X. Benedict]

Good questions. Again, to kind of turn it around, I think the full evolution of the human form is that we will become as God is. There's a quote in Mormon-dom that goes something like "As man is, God once was, and as God is, man can become." I know that concept flies in the face of *everything* mainstream christianity teaches, but it is what it is.

 

Thanks for the clarification. It is helpful to know.

 

 

As for whether God is eternal or created being, my thoughts are that He's eternal, but in the same sense that matter neither is created or destroyed, I guess? It's hard for me to understand a concept as insane as "no beginning/no end," so in my secular mind, I try to tie the two together by saying that God is eternal because the elements that make Him God have been around forever. That's easier for me to understand than "God has been God forever," ya know? I know it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but neither does eternity, in my mind. I mean, plants come from seeds, right? *Babies* come from seeds (if you want to be absolutely technical about it, seed and egg, but whatever). Everything has a beginning. But where does one draw the line in what constitutes a beginning? Have these elements always existed, and therefore we are are ALL eternal? Maybe. Probably.

 

And ... yah.

 

Interesting. So my understanding check.

 

The Mormon God (in as much as he is a material being) was always around elementally, but not necessarily possessing the divine attributes Judaism/Islam/Catholicism would normally associate with God: e.g. omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving, all-merciful, etc. -- these were attributes that were acquired - and that Mormon disciples also hope one day to acquire.

 

How am I doing?