Reason to Believe

[Trailblazer]

Seriously? Your god is so powerless, that it cannot manage this simple feat?

LMAO! That is the funniest sh--- I've read in nearly two decades of on-line conversation.

You crack me up-- I literally laughed out loud, here.
And if you were serious? Oh. My. Laughing harder: Talk about Ivory Tower, or hoisting one's self up on a an imaginary pedestal.

Thanks for the laughs!

What you are totally missing is that God does not want to give you special powers.

An omnipotent God does only what it wants to do and an omniscient God knows what it is doing...

Thanks for the laughs.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What you are totally missing is that God does not want to give you special powers.

An omnipotent God does only what it wants to do and an omniscient God knows what it is doing...

Thanks for the laughs.

You know this....how?


But here's the thing: This All Knowing god knows **exactly** what I need to believe in it.

Yet... I remain an atheist for lack of evidence.

Who's fault is that? It ain't ME! I'd love to believe in a caretaker being-- it would alleviate the worry that humans will be wiped out by a meteor or something.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

.
.
If God exists he would have created humans for a purpose
and he would not be stupid enough to give them any choice
as to whether they conformed to that purpose


God the Father exists in eternity, outside of matter, energy, space and time
He also exists in your soul
You know him as your conscience
He is directly responsible for everything good and bad that happens to you


If you develop a relationship with your conscience
to the level that you follow its directions even if you don’t want to
Your life will start to go right
and you will be directed towards your life purpose


God in the form of Father, Son & Holy Ghost is love
He springs into existence when there is genuine love between two people
I am not saying God creates love. I am saying he is love, and is personally present as love
You will worship him in that form whether you want to or not


For a Love relationship to survive long term
the two people commit to that love – not to each other – to the love
For life. In that way they worship God, who is love


The Holy Ghost is your environment, You live within him
He/She is the living video game that you call life
Those who view their environment as having life and personality
naturally, immediately and automatically live at a higher level of existence


So whether you believe in God or not doesn’t matter
Whether you choose a religion and conform to it or not is only relevant to spiritual quality and standing
You exist within God, he dominates your life, he organises the events of your life
and stage-manages every aspect of your existence
.
.

So. How do you explain a blatant Sociopath? The Classic Example, would be Charles Manson. But there are other examples in history.

But according to your narrative? Mansion is now resting comfortably in Heaven....!

 

[Mock Turtle]

well, that is true.

Apologies for my snappy remarks - I think I need to chill out a bit. Probably not that useful.

 

[Trailblazer]

You know this....how?

I know this because it is logic 101 stuff. An omnipotent God could give you special powers. You do not have the special powers. Therefore God does not want to give you special powers.

But here's the thing: This All Knowing god knows **exactly** what I need to believe in it.

Yet... I remain an atheist for lack of evidence.

Who's fault is that? It ain't ME! I'd love to believe in a caretaker being-- it would alleviate the worry that humans will be wiped out by a meteor or something.

God knows what you need? God is not a short order cook. You remain an atheist because you refuse to look at the only evidence that God provides, the Messenger. If you laugh in God's face and make fun of His Messenger how is that God's fault?

 

[InChrist]

Yes, I have clearly stated that we do. You have tried your darnedest to prove that we don't.

I believe we are in agreement as to what the Bible teaches about Jesus Christ. Our disagreements stem from non-biblical statements about Him. You believe what the 4th and 5th-century creeds say about Him and I believe what modern-day revelation says about Him.

You quoted from the Doctrine and Covenants and provided a specific citation (section 93, verses 12-14?). Perhaps you could do the same with what I apparently should be believing instead. How about you show me chapter and verse in the Bible where it says that Jesus Christ is the "unique, eternal only Son with no beginning, who has always existed one in substance and nature with the one and only eternal God the Father and the Holy Spirit." When you can do that, perhaps we can try again.

Honestly, I don't think we're ever going to agree to see eye-to-eye on what we believe, because we both are insistent upon using sources outside of the Bible to expound upon what the Bible actually says. My initial comment was that I believe in Jesus Christ, as He is actually spoken of in the Bible. I added nothing to what the Bible actually says. I went on to say that if you also believe what the Bible has to say about Him, then we have found some common ground. You, however, would prefer to focus on non-biblical sources (both yours and mine) and attempt to prove that we do not worship the same Savior after all. If you want to do that, you might start by explaining what makes your 4th and 5th century sources any better than my 19th century source.

To me, that's obvious.

I have already told you what I believe about Jesus Christ, based on what the Bible tells us about Him. And you have already implied that I can't possibly be thinking of the same Jesus you're thinking of if our extra-biblical sources disagree as to what they have to say about Him. What more is there to say?

I'm choosing not to have a discussion with someone I believe -- based on past experience -- to be disingenuous.

I am very sincere whenever I discuss things with you, Katzpur, because I was a Mormon, I believed what you believe. I care about Mormons and I care about you. I read your words and carefully consider what you are saying and desire to understand you as a person. I realize I fail all too often. I pray for you because I care. I pray for the right attitude before responding because for me it's not about winning an argument or being right, but speaking the truth as I see it with love and respect.

I don't read, study or derive my beliefs about the nature of God or Jesus from 4th or 5th century creeds, but from the Bible alone.

True, you have stated you believe in Jesus as "the One who was the Creator of this world, the One who was born to a virgin in Bethlehem,the One who died for me on the cross, the One who was resurrected three days later and the One who is my Advocate with the Father today". Certainly, with these facts I can agree when given from a biblical perspective and I think Mormonism has certain facts right. But with my past experience as a Mormon I understand that these facts have an entirely different meaning according to LDS doctrine. It is with the different LDS meaning of "who the Son of God is, the virgin birth, the reason Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and how He is the Advocate with the Father", that I conclude Mormonism has a different Jesus. If I knew you dismissed all extra-biblical LDS doctrine concerning the procreation of Jesus as a spirit child of Elohim (an exalted man of flesh and bones who progressed to godhood), along with the procreation of all of us as his spirit brothers and sisters, or that he was chosen to be the Savior over Lucifer his spirit brother because he had a better plan, or that it was Heavenly Father who caused the virgin Mary to conceive rather than the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus did not have the fullness of God at first, but only received the fullness after continuing from grace to grace, as stated in D&C 93 ... then I may be able to agree that we worship the same Jesus of the Bible and/or talk about Jesus without referring to extra-biblical LDS sources.

I would prefer discuss the nature of God and/or Jesus from the Bible alone, but when you think about Jesus, do you do so without referencing these LDS ideas in your mind or are these concepts included in your view of Jesus' identity? This thread probably would not be the appropriate place anyway for such a discussion, since it is veering off the OP.

 

[Katzpur]

I am very sincere whenever I discuss things with you, Katzpur, because I was a Mormon, I believed what you believe.

You weren't a Mormon for all that long, and your understanding of Mormon doctrine doesn't even begin to compare with mine. Don't try to pretend it does.

I care about Mormons and I care about you. I read your words and carefully consider what you are saying and desire to understand you as a person. I realize I fail all too often. I pray for you because I care. I pray for the right attitude before responding because for me it's not about winning an argument or being right, but speaking the truth as I see it with love and respect.

I don't believe a word of that. I don't believe it because, over the period of time we've interacted on this forum, you have repeatedly shown me that you hold nothing but contempt for my beliefs. I don't see you as loving, respectful or caring, and I don't think anyone who has ever followed our past interactions does either.

I don't read, study or derive my beliefs about the nature of God or Jesus from 4th or 5th century creeds, but from the Bible alone.

That is absolute nonsense. If you believe in a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit who are all part of a single substance, that's proof right there that you don't derive your beliefs from the Bible alone. Furthermore if you are so impertinent as to insist that spiritual truths can be found nowhere outside of the Bible, you're making claims for the Bible it never even makes for itself.

True, you have stated you believe in Jesus as "the One who was the Creator of this world, the One who was born to a virgin in Bethlehem,the One who died for me on the cross, the One who was resurrected three days later and the One who is my Advocate with the Father today". Certainly, with these facts I can agree when given from a biblical perspective and I think Mormonism has certain facts right.

And what facts are more important than these? I can't think of a single solitary one!

But with my past experience as a Mormon I understand that these facts have an entirely different meaning according to LDS doctrine. It is with the different LDS meaning of "who the Son of God is, the virgin birth, the reason Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, and how He is the Advocate with the Father", that I conclude Mormonism has a different Jesus. If I knew you dismissed all extra-biblical LDS doctrine concerning the procreation of Jesus as a spirit child of Elohim (an exalted man of flesh and bones who progressed to godhood), along with the procreation of all of us as his spirit brothers and sisters, or that he was chosen to be the Savior over Lucifer his spirit brother because he had a better plan, or that it was Heavenly Father who caused the virgin Mary to conceive rather than the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus did not have the fullness of God at first, but only received the fullness after continuing from grace to grace, as stated in D&C 93 ... then I may be able to agree that we worship the same Jesus of the Bible and/or talk about Jesus without referring to extra-biblical LDS sources.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You start out by saying that you derive your beliefs from the Bible alone, and then you turn around and then you acknowledge (in this last paragraph) that you also refer to extra-biblical sources to support your beliefs.

I would prefer to discuss the nature of God and/or Jesus from the Bible alone, but when you think about Jesus, do you do so without referencing these LDS ideas in your mind or are these concepts included in your view of Jesus' identity? This thread probably would not be the appropriate place anyway for such a discussion, since it is veering off the OP.

Good grief, woman. Of course I'm going to think about Jesus with LDS teachings in my mind, just as you're going to think about Jesus with Evangelical Christian teachings in your mind. Why should I agree to stick solely with the Bible and yet allow you to go anywhere you wanted to provide evidence for your beliefs? We could agree to debate the nature of God and/or Jesus from the Bible alone, but you and I both know that's not ever going to happen. You don't have the self-discipline to make it happen.

 

[InChrist]

You weren't a Mormon for all that long, and your understanding of Mormon doctrine doesn't even begin to compare with mine. Don't try to pretend it does.

I don't try to assume I understand Mormon doctrine as you do, since you were born into Mormonism and have been a Mormon your entire life. I just know that at one time I did believe the doctrines of Mormonism and accepted the teachings of the LDS Church.

I don't believe a word of that. I don't believe it because, over the period of time we've interacted on this forum, you have repeatedly shown me that you hold nothing but contempt for my beliefs. I don't see you as loving, respectful or caring, and I don't think anyone who has ever followed our past interactions does either.

Just because I do not agree with LDS doctrine does not mean I hold contempt for you or any Mormon personally. I have always tried to interact with you respectfully, without being rude or unkind, even though we disagree.

That is absolute nonsense. If you believe in a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit who are all part of a single substance, that's proof right there that you don't derive your beliefs from the Bible alone. Furthermore if you are so impertinent as to insist that spiritual truths can be found nowhere outside of the Bible, you're making claims for the Bible it never even makes for itself.

The biblical scriptures reveal that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each have all the attributes of God unique to the eternal God alone, making them One God in three Persons. There may be spiritual truth outside the Bible, but when things which are claimed to be truth don't line up with the truth already revealed in the Bible then I don't believe it to be truth.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You start out by saying that you derive your beliefs from the Bible alone, and then you turn around and then you acknowledge (in this last paragraph) that you also refer to extra-biblical sources to support your beliefs.

I referenced the extra-biblical Doctrine&Covenants not because my beliefs are derived from that source, but to question whether yours were with regard to Jesus.

Good grief, woman. Of course I'm going to think about Jesus with LDS teachings in my mind, just as you're going to think about Jesus with Evangelical Christian teachings in your mind. Why should I agree to stick solely with the Bible and yet allow you to go anywhere you wanted to provide evidence for your beliefs? We could agree to debate the nature of God and/or Jesus from the Bible alone, but you and I both know that's not ever going to happen. You don't have the self-discipline to make it happen.

I realize we each have our thoughts about God or Jesus influenced by either evangelical Christianity or LDS perspectives, but I believe the Bible alone is sufficient for any discussion to reveal the distinct nature of God and Jesus.

 

[Katzpur]

Just because I do not agree with LDS doctrine does not mean I hold contempt for you or any Mormon personally. I have always tried to interact with you respectfully, without being rude or unkind, even though we disagree.

Well, that's certainly not how you've come across to me. I'm glad you're at least trying, because I can't even imagine how you'd be coming across if you weren't! As the Scottish poet, Robert Burns wrote: “O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us!" Or, in modern English, “Oh would some Power the gift give us, to see ourselves as others see us.”

The biblical scriptures reveal that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each have all the attributes of God unique to the eternal God alone, making them One God in three Persons.

So we agree -- more or less. But who are you even referring to when you say "the eternal God alone"?

There may be spiritual truth outside the Bible, but when things which are claimed to be truth don't line up with the truth already revealed in the Bible then I don't believe it to be truth.

Nor do I. The thing is, I believe Mormonism's claims do line up with what the Bible says, and you don't. But then you don't really even understand Mormonism's claims. You just think you do, and so you see contradictions between what Mormonism teaches and what you believe the Bible teaches when, in fact, there aren't any. There definitely are, however, contradictions between what Mormonism teaches and what Evangelical Christianity teaches.

I referenced the extra-biblical Doctrine&Covenants not because my beliefs are derived from that source, but to question whether yours were with regard to Jesus.

I know your beliefs are not derived from the Doctrine & Covenants, but they are not derived solely from the Bible any more than mine are.

I realize we each have our thoughts about God or Jesus influenced by either evangelical Christianity or LDS perspectives, but I believe the Bible alone is sufficient for any discussion to reveal the distinct nature of God and Jesus.

I believe the Bible to be an excellent but incomplete source of information about God, but I am convinced that I could argue my point of view every bit as proficiently as you could argue yours, using the Bible and the Bible alone. I'd even agree to such a debate if I thought for one minute that I could trust you to play fair. Unfortunately, I can't.

 

[InChrist]

Well, that's certainly not how you've come across to me. I'm glad you're at least trying, because I can't even imagine how you'd be coming across if you weren't! As the Scottish poet, Robert Burns wrote: “O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us!" Or, in modern English, “Oh would some Power the gift give us, to see ourselves as others see us.”

That is true, we so often don't see ourselves as others do. If I have come across less than respectful or caring then I apologize.

So we agree -- more or less. But who are you even referring to when you say "the eternal God alone"?

The One and Only uncreated Being or Holy God who has always, eternally existed as God, apart from His creation.

Nor do I. The thing is, I believe Mormonism's claims do line up with what the Bible says, and you don't. But then you don't really even understand Mormonism's claims. You just think you do, and so you see contradictions between what Mormonism teaches and what you believe the Bible teaches when, in fact, there aren't any. There definitely are, however, contradictions between what Mormonism teaches and what Evangelical Christianity teaches.

I know your beliefs are not derived from the Doctrine & Covenants, but they are not derived solely from the Bible any more than mine are.

I believe the Bible to be an excellent but incomplete source of information about God, but I am convinced that I could argue my point of view every bit as proficiently as you could argue yours, using the Bible and the Bible alone. I'd even agree to such a debate if I thought for one minute that I could trust you to play fair. Unfortunately, I can't.

How would you know if Mormonism lines up with the Bible, if your foundational belief is that the Bible is incomplete? Doesn't that leave plenty of room to say anything Mormonism claims is true, even if the Bible doesn't support such teachings simply by claiming the Bible is missing this or that that "truth" because it's incomplete? Where do you think the beliefs of evangelical Christianity come from, if not from the Bible alone? I can agree that there are plenty of false teachings within the Christian world, nevertheless, I think these must also be subject to testing by the Bible.

In what way do you not trust me to play fair?

 

[Trailblazer]

I can agree that there are plenty of false teachings within the Christian world, nevertheless, I think these must also be subject to testing by the Bible.

I believe in Jesus but I am not a Christian. As an outsider looking in, I cannot understand how it is possible to parse out which Christians have the true beliefs and which ones have the false beliefs. They are all reading from the same Bible so it is all a matter of interpretation, isn't it? What else can it possibly be?

The obvious implication of all the disagreements among Christians is that Bible verses can have more than one meaning. How can anyone say the meaning they assign is correct and the other meanings others assign are wrong? Why do people think they are uniquely qualified to interpret the Bible? Even the early Christians did not understand the nature of Jesus, which is why they had to hold councils to decide upon the doctrines of the Church.

 

[InChrist]

I believe in Jesus but I am not a Christian. As an outsider looking in, I cannot understand how it is possible to parse out which Christians have the true beliefs and which ones have the false beliefs. They are all reading from the same Bible so it is all a matter of interpretation, isn't it? What else can it possibly be?

The obvious implication of all the disagreements among Christians is that Bible verses can have more than one meaning. How can anyone say the meaning they assign is correct and the other meanings others assign are wrong? Why do people think they are uniquely qualified to interpret the Bible? Even the early Christians did not understand the nature of Jesus, which is why they had to hold councils to decide upon the doctrines of the Church.

Well, many people may believe Jesus lived in past history, or that He was a good person or teacher, or a prophet, but I believe the term "Christian" means one is a disciple of Christ ... And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26) and I think the scriptures show that to believe in Jesus means to have faith or complete trust in Him for forgiveness of one's sins and eternal life.

I think the various disagreements among Christians simply reveals that the church is still a work in progress as Christians learn...with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love coming to a unity of faith, as the scriptures state in Ephesians 4.
I believe the Bible interprets itself and those who read the Bible need to have the attitude of letting the scriptures speak for themselves, rather than imposing personal ideas upon them. The purpose of the church councils were not actually to decide doctrines or even decide which books make-up the canon of the Bible, from my understanding, because the OT documents and the letters of the NT were already recognized and being circulated among believers in the early churches. The councils were called to make a formal doctrinal stand against heresies of the day.
7. The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture

 

[Katzpur]

That is true, we so often don't see ourselves as others do. If I have come across less than respectful or caring then I apologize.

You can apologize all your want, but as long as you keep saying I believe in a "different" Jesus than the one in the Bible, you are insulting me, and as long as you are convinced of that, you're not going to make me see you in a different light.

The One and Only uncreated Being or Holy God who has always, eternally existed as God, apart from His creation.

You just got through saying that "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each have all the attributes of God unique to the eternal God alone." You said they all have the same attributes. Don't you believe that Jesus Christ has a glorified, immortal body? If neither God the Father nor the Holy Ghost have a body, then right out of the gate, they don't all have the same attributes. A "single substance" can't be both corporeal and incorporeal at the same time.

How would you know if Mormonism lines up with the Bible, if your foundational belief is that the Bible is incomplete?

Easy. You can't contradict something that's missing entirely. Mormon doctrine doesn't contradict anything the Bible says about God. It simply provides additional information, for those who are open-minded enough to consider it.

Doesn't that leave plenty of room to say anything Mormonism claims is true, even if the Bible doesn't support such teachings simply by claiming the Bible is missing this or that that "truth" because it's incomplete?

As I said before, Mormonism doesn't contradict anything the Bible has to say about God. But as soon as you become insistent that the Bible is complete (when it clearly isn't!), you're running the risk of missing out on a lot of valuable information. Furthermore, you are essential telling God that it doesn't matter to you that He may want to give you additional knowledge. He's done talking as far as you're concerned, so He might just as well shut up.

Where do you think the beliefs of evangelical Christianity come from, if not from the Bible alone? I can agree that there are plenty of false teachings within the Christian world, nevertheless, I think these must also be subject to testing by the Bible.

It comes from a variety of sources. The Trinity doctrine is certainly not found in the Bible, and you may say that you don't use the early Christian creeds to base your beliefs about God on, but your concept of God lines up perfectly with how Christians learned to see God after 325 A.D. Most of the differences between Catholic Christianity and Protestant Christianity stem from how the early Protestant Reformers interpreted scripture. It is impossible to use the Bible alone and come to any legitimate understanding of God. If this were not the case, we wouldn't have tens of thousands of different Protestant denominations in the world today -- all claiming to use the Bible alone!

In what way do you not trust me to play fair?

I don't believe you could resist the urge to say, "Well, you believe [such and such] about God and that isn't in the Bible!" You'd reference extra-biblical LDS writings to prove me wrong, even if we decided to stick solely to the Bible.

 

[InChrist]

You can apologize all your want, but as long as you keep saying I believe in a "different" Jesus than the one in the Bible, you are insulting me.

So how would you like me to express my perspective on this subject in a way that you will not feel personally insulted? I can remember while a Mormon hearing it said within the Mormon Church that the Jesus Christ we (as LDS ) believed in was different than that of Christianity and I still see this expressed in Mormon writings. I suppose I could be offended at that now, but how can people discuss various different doctrines and beliefs if they can't get past feeling insulted?

You just got through saying that "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each have all the attributes of God unique to the eternal God alone." You said they all have the same attributes. Don't you believe that Jesus Christ has a glorified, immortal body? If neither God the Father nor the Holy Ghost have a body, then right out of the gate, they don't all have the same attributes. A "single substance" can't be both corporeal and incorporeal at the same time.

I do believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have the same attributes meaning their characteristics and nature. By nature I mean infinite God-nature, which only God has eternally possessed, as opposed to created, finite human nature. Yes, I believe that Jesus has a glorified immortal body because the Bible is clear that the Son became flesh and in this Jesus is the now the unique only God/glorified human.

Easy. You can't contradict something that's missing entirely. Mormon doctrine doesn't contradict anything the Bible says about God. It simply provides additional information, for those who are open-minded enough to consider it.

It certainly does. As I said before, Mormonism doesn't contradict anything the Bible has to say about God. But as soon as you become insistent that the Bible is complete (when it clearly isn't!), you're running the risk of missing out on a lot of valuable information. Furthermore, you are essential telling God that it doesn't matter to you that He may want to give you additional knowledge. He's done talking as far as you're concerned, so He might just as well shut up.

I think one only runs the risk of missing out on valuable info...only if God left something out in the first place. I don't think He has as Christ embodies God's full revelation and the biblical scriptures fully reveal that Jesus provides all that is needed for salvation and eternal life. One runs the risk of accepting a lot of misinformation by being open to information that is not needed and very possibly false. I believe Mormonism does contradict the Bible's information about God and I could discuss this using the Bible alone.

It comes from a variety of sources. The Trinity doctrine is certainly not found in the Bible, and you may say that you don't use the early Christian creeds to base your beliefs about God on, but your concept of God lines up perfectly with how Christians learned to see God after 325 A.D. Most of the differences between Catholic Christianity and Protestant Christianity stem from how the early Protestant Reformers interpreted scripture. It is impossible to use the Bible alone and come to any legitimate understanding of God. If this were not the case, we wouldn't have tens of thousands of different Protestant denominations in the world today -- all claiming to use the Bible alone!

I am not Catholic or Reformed and I see the triune nature of God expressed in the biblical scriptures without the use of creeds or man-made documents. I saw this and believed in the Trinity (after years of denying), immediately after trusting Christ alone as my Savior and being born again at home...before being part of a Christian church and before ever knowing anything about creeds. For my research, I understand that the creeds were primarily composed to formulate what believers already saw in the scriptures concerning the nature of God, Jesus, or things pertaining to sin, salvation, etc. as a stand against heresy of the day. They were not for the purpose of creating new doctrines, adding new revelations, or adding or taking away from the scriptures. Although there are many different denominations that vary in non-essential issues, those that base their beliefs on the Bible do hold core essential doctrines about God, Jesus, and salvation in common agreement.

I don't believe you could resist the urge to say, "Well, you believe [such and such] about God and that isn't in the Bible!" You'd reference extra-biblical LDS writings to prove me wrong, even if we decided to stick solely to the Bible.

So are you saying that although you accept the information of the standard works of the Mormon Church included in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price to be truth, I would be wrong to bring up points from these if something you believe is based on doctrines from any of these contradicts the information revealed in the Bible?

 

[Katzpur]

So how would you like me to express my perspective on this subject in a way that you will not feel personally insulted?

I don't think you're capable of doing so. Most people can express their own beliefs about Jesus without having to say, "so you believe in a different Jesus." I talk to people all the time who believe different things about Jesus than I do, but we can all agree that we are talking about the same individual and that it was this individual who died for all of us.

I can remember while a Mormon hearing it said within the Mormon Church that the Jesus Christ we (as LDS ) believed in was different than that of Christianity and I still see this expressed in Mormon writings.

We may believe different things about Jesus than traditional Christianity does, but we believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible, like it or not.

I suppose I could be offended at that now, but how can people discuss various different doctrines and beliefs if they can't get past feeling insulted?

You can't. Some people can. Those are the people I enjoy talking to.

I do believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all have the same attributes meaning their characteristics and nature. By nature I mean infinite God-nature, which only God has eternally possessed, as opposed to created, finite human nature. Yes, I believe that Jesus has a glorified immortal body because the Bible is clear that the Son became flesh and in this Jesus is the now the unique only God/glorified human.

Okay, aside from the fact that I also believe that God the Father has a glorified, immortal body, we're on the same page. But my Jesus is apparently some kind of fraud because He physically resembles His Father?

I think one only runs the risk of missing out on valuable info...only if God left something out in the first place.

Ridiculous. God left nothing out. Human beings did. God did not personally assemble your Bible, pick what was included in it and make sure it was translated flawlessly.

I don't think He has as Christ embodies God's full revelation and the biblical scriptures fully reveal that Jesus provides all that is needed for salvation and eternal life. One runs the risk of accepting a lot of misinformation by being open to information that is not needed and very possibly false.

And one runs the risk of missing out on a lot of true information by simply assuming that the Bible is complete and inerrant.

I believe Mormonism does contradict the Bible's information about God and I could discuss this using the Bible alone.

I don't think you'd be able to.

I am not Catholic or Reformed and I see the triune nature of God expressed in the biblical scriptures without the use of creeds or man-made documents. I saw this and believed in the Trinity (after years of denying), immediately after trusting Christ alone as my Savior and being born again at home...before being part of a Christian church and before ever knowing anything about creeds. For my research, I understand that the creeds were primarily composed to formulate what believers already saw in the scriptures concerning the nature of God, Jesus, or things pertaining to sin, salvation, etc. as a stand against heresy of the day. They were not for the purpose of creating new doctrines, adding new revelations, or adding or taking away from the scriptures. Although there are many different denominations that vary in non-essential issues, those that base their beliefs on the Bible do hold core essential doctrines about God, Jesus, and salvation in common agreement.

Yeah, well, I think you're clueless as to where a lot of your beliefs actually originated.

So are you saying that although you accept the information of the standard works of the Mormon Church included in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price to be truth, I would be wrong to bring up points from these if something you believe is based on doctrines from any of these contradicts the information revealed in the Bible?

You could bring them up, but since they don't contradict anything in the Bible, it would be a waste of your time. You just don't get it, do you? I have zero interest in having a dialogue with you. There are plenty of people on this forum I can converse with without the drama. They don't tell me that I'm not a real Christian or that I don't believe in the real Jesus Christ.

 

[InChrist]

You could bring them up, but since they don't contradict anything in the Bible, it would be a waste of your time. You just don't get it, do you? I have zero interest in having a dialogue with you. There are plenty of people on this forum I can converse with without the drama. They don't tell me that I'm not a real Christian or that I don't believe in the real Jesus Christ.

I was thinking that besides just discussing our differing doctrines, I may have been able at some point to understand why you believe the LDS doctrines that are so important to you. In other words, understand why your Mormon beliefs concerning God and Jesus, etc. resonate so personally for you. But since I have already said I care about you as a person and I truly do, whether you believe me or not, I will respect your plainly stated wishes and cease trying to dialog with you. I don't have any desire to keep bothering you, Katzpur. Thanks for the conversations we've had.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think the various disagreements among Christians simply reveals that the church is still a work in progress as Christians learn...with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love coming to a unity of faith, as the scriptures state in Ephesians 4.

If the church is still a work “in progress” don’t you think that 2000 years is a long time for it to still be in progress? I mean many people complain about the Baha’is not being shining examples of their religion, not being perfectly spiritual, but the Baha’i Faith has only been around for 165 years.

I believe the Bible interprets itself and those who read the Bible need to have the attitude of letting the scriptures speak for themselves, rather than imposing personal ideas upon them.

Logically speaking, there is absolutely no way that the scriptures speak for themselves and that people do not impose their personal ideas upon them. Scriptures do not speak; they require someone to read them and interpret them. Some verses are easy to interpret such as the ones I cited below, but some such as Colossians 2:9; 1:19 could mean more than one thing... and this is what causes all the problems, ambibuous verses. Moreover, since every human being is completely different in their knowledge base and how they think that means there is no way that everyone could ever interpret all verses the same way...

So back to my question; How can there be one Bible interpretation that is correct and even if one was correct how could anyone ever know which interpretation of correct?

The purpose of the church councils were not actually to decide doctrines or even decide which books make-up the canon of the Bible, from my understanding, because the OT documents and the letters of the NT were already recognized and being circulated among believers in the early churches. The councils were called to make a formal doctrinal stand against heresies of the day.
7. The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture

According to everything I have ever read and also this article below, the Council of Nicaea was held primarily for the “purpose of defining the nature of God for all of Christianity and eliminating confusion, controversy, and contention within the church.”

Question: "What occurred at the Council of Nicea?"
Answer: The Council of Nicea took place in AD 325 by order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicea was located in Asia Minor, east of Constantinople. At the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine presided over a group of church bishops and other leaders with the purpose of defining the nature of God for all of Christianity and eliminating confusion, controversy, and contention within the church. The Council of Nicea overwhelmingly affirmed the deity and eternality of Jesus Christ and defined the relationship between the Father and the Son as “of one substance.” It also affirmed the Trinity—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were listed as three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.......

The main theological issue had always been about Christ. Since the end of the apostolic age, Christians had begun debating these questions: Who is the Christ? Is He more divine than human or more human than divine? Was Jesus created or begotten? Being the Son of God, is He co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, or is He lower in status than the Father? Is the Father the one true God, or are the Father, Son, and Spirit the one true God?......

The New Testament teaches that Jesus the Messiah should be worshipped, which is to say He is co-equal with God. The New Testament forbids the worship of angels (Colossians 2:18; Revelation 22:8, 9) but commands worship of Jesus. The apostle Paul tells us that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9; 1:19). Paul declares Jesus as Lord and the One to whom a person must pray for salvation (Romans 10:9-13; cf. Joel 2:32). “Jesus is God overall” (Romans 9:5) and our God and Savior (Titus 2:13). Faith in Jesus’ deity is basic to Paul’s theology.

John’s Gospel declares Jesus to be the divine, eternal Logos, the agent of creation and source of life and light (John 1:1-5,9); "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6); our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1-2); the Sovereign (Revelation 1:5); and the Son of God from the beginning to the end (Revelation 22:13). The author of Hebrews reveals the deity of Jesus through His perfection as the most high priest (Hebrews 1; Hebrews 7:1-3). The divine-human Savior is the Christian’s object of faith, hope, and love.

The Council of Nicea did not invent the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Rather, the Council of Nicea affirmed the apostles’ teaching of who Christ is—the one true God and the Second Person of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
What occurred at the Council of Nicea?

I consider what was decided upon at the Council of Nicaea a very wrong and yet this is what most Christians believe till this very day.

The article says: “The New Testament teaches that Jesus the Messiah should be worshipped, which is to say He is co-equal with God.”

No, the New Testament does not teach that. Jesus never claimed to coequal with God and Jesus never wanted to be worshiped as God.

Jesus said that God was greater than He was and to worship only God:

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, 'Away from me, Satan! For it is written: "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

That simply demonstrates how the Bible can be interpreted differently by different people and some interpretations are just wrong, if Jesus really said those things.

The apostle Paul tells us that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9; 1:19). Then Paul was wrong, because Jesus disclaimed being God and an Almighty God does not dwell inside of any human being. This is a complete misconstruing of Bible verses and it is a travesty.

Jesus said He was from God and that God sent Him, again differentiating Himself from God:

John 17:3 And eternal life means to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, whom you sent.

John 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. 29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

Jesus referred to Himself as a Prophet, and was so regarded. Jesus never referred to Himself as God.

Matthew 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

Luke 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.

Nobody can be a man and God at the same time; that is logically inconsistent. The Trinity is thus a ridiculous doctrine. One is either God or one is a man, these are mutually exclusive categories. However, Jesus could have been a hybrid, a God-man, and that makes complete logical sense because Jesus was above any ordinary man and subordinate to God, according to the scriptures..

There is absolutely no way that Jesus is God, unless many different verses of the Bible are wrong, so let’s look at some verses. If Colossians means that Jesus is God, then the other verses cited below that are also from Paul cannot be right, because they differentiate Jesus from God:

2 Corinthians 1:3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

2 Corinthians 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Acts 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

These last two verses accurately represent who Jesus was, a man made in the image of the invisible God, a mediator between God and men. That fits perfectly with what I said above, that Jesus was a hybrid, a God-man, because that is what allowed Jesus to be a mediator between God and man. As a God-man, Jesus was a perfect mirror image of God, something no other human could ever be. But Jesus was not actually God in the flesh because God cannot become flesh. If God was flesh, that would contradict these verses:

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

 

[Muffled]

(One of my favourite Tim Hardin songs, lol)

I am sure this has been asked many times, but any willing to contribute would be appreciated. Given all the various religious beliefs, what exactly caused you to accept one particular belief over another given that there are essentially five choices, and any reasons for doing so:

1. Leave it all in the air and make no choice.
2. Believe that all religions are essentially correct in their own way - with of course reservations.
3. Believe that some religions are essentially correct but others are not - again with reservations.
4. Believe that one religion is true and all the rest necessarily are false - with reservations.
5. Not believing any religion to be true - even though much of what they espouse will be true, or at least valuable.

For me it is the last. My reason? Lack of evidence (or not sufficient unbiased evidence to be exact), hence the default position - that none are true. The last is the default position, rather than the first I believe, because one really does need to prove an assertion if one wants others to believe it. After all, religions make claims, but whether one accepts these claims or not is if one believes the evidence or not. I can understand some having the first belief but not really for those having the middle three, particularly given the number of different beliefs.

Your reasons then?

I believe a common statement in Christianity is that making no choice is still making a choice and immortalized in a Rush song.

I do believe that lacks evidence.

I believe the evidence is that Christianity fulfills the purposes of God and other religions do not. I have no reservations about that.

I believe that Christianity is true to the purposes of God and other religions are not.

I believe if one wishes to prove something is false the burden of proof falls on that person and it is not incumbent for a religion to prove it is true.

I believe what this usually amounts to is a disbelief in evidence. I once pointed out a fact in a newspaper that supported my position on something to my brother and his response was that he didn't believe the newspaper. That makes a lot more sense to me now than it did then.

 

[Muffled]

Interesting thread ...

I think this sums up my views -

"If your understanding of the divine made you kinder, more empathetic, and impelled you to express sympathy in concrete acts of loving-kindness, this was good theology. But if your notion of God made you unkind, belligerent, cruel, or self-righteous, or if it led you to kill in God's name, it was bad theology."

~ Karen Armstrong

I believe that comes under the heading of making up your own rules as to what God should be like. Unfortunately God does not feel obliged to follow your rules.

 

[Muffled]

It is ironic to me that one of the principal points of evolutionary doctrine is that of 'the survival of fittest.'

The reason that this is ironic to me is that believing in a religious doctrine and God - is all about survival: how to attain survival, even extremely long life.

Thus, when I see your post, the first thing that comes to mind is - what do you get out of your stance?! If you gain nothing that aids in your prolonged survival, it has little value in my eyes.

If God was known to simply exist, but it was also known that he had nothing to offer us gnats on this earth - his existence would be kind of seeing a star that is 1000's of light-years distant, interesting, but in the end, without any impact or importance on my life.

I believe the survival of the fittest is precisely what Christianity is all about. Those who are fit go into eternal life and those who are not die and eventually go to hell.