Re: when Jesus became God?
- From: rasqual <scott.marquardt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:25:58 -0000
David Bowie wrote:
rasqual wrote:
I agreed with David, that it is possible ITMSOT for God to be more pragmatic
than dogmatic with His answers, if a higher benefit is imparted to the
individual so answered, and even if that answer can appear to be "a lie" to
some mortal observer. He will let that appear to be "a lie" to the observer,
especially in cases where the observer will not thrust out his own disbelief
and try to get his own answer in prayer.
If one cannot be sure one's answer is not a lie, what's the point?
Um, Scott, didn't you notice Rob's careful construction "can *appear* to
be a 'lie' to some mortal observer" (emphasis added)?
Um, yes. And if something "appears" to be a lie, then it's quite
possible that some observers will not be sure whether it is or not.
No?
In any event, even if it were a lie (which i am *not* conceding), if it
were set up to lead to the most possible progress[1] for the individual,
why would it matter?
If it were true theology, it may or may not matter. I couldn't say.
But if it's a bogus theology, then I'd imagine it might matter quite a
bit. A theology that encourages people to shrug off divine deception
-- especially a theology that publishes existentially loose notions of
personal revelation -- runs the risk of losing people to gospel
hobbies, schismatic oddities, wish fulfillments, and so forth. If the
hallmark the presence of the divine in one's life isn't veritas, then
pretty much anything's up for grabs, potentially.
Scripture so frequently speaks of the faithfulness of God, that it
seems pretty careless to consider that just about anything that comes
one's way (contrary to what one might believe about God) might be
divine. Quite obviously, it might just as well not be. Unless
faithfulness and truth characterize a thing, what differentiates
"apparent" deception from God from what "the Deceiver" or one's own
delusions might foist?
Is a burning bosom the protective rubric to help one discern? Heaven
help us.
Rob, do you have even one corroborating datum from the gospel library
at lds.org to support what you're saying here? If not, why are you
berating me as if I'm impugning Mormonism so unfairly? Seems to me if
your church doesn't agree with you and David, this is just you guys
talking.
Mormonism does not have a catechism. (Maybe we need another s.r.m. TLA:
MSNHAC?)
Doesn't mean someone in authority, as documented in the source I
suggest, hasn't taught what Rob seems to want me to accept.
Why should I accept what Rob is claiming, David? That's not a
rhetorical question. LdS in this forum berate critics for not
understanding Mormonism, then offer their own free-wheeling notions as
if we're ridiculous for not heeding what you have to say as
representative of your faith. Then when we ask for corroboration from
authorities, we get excuses that you have no catechism?
Why should critics be accountable to LdS in a usenet forum, who refuse
to cite authorities for what they berate us critics for not lending
credence to?
Seriously, David. You can't just water-off-duck's-back that kind of
question forever. It happens all the time. I mean, here you have a
critic giving you a chance to point me toward corroboration of
something I hear is a Mormon view -- something important enough for
the critic to know that I hear no end of how badly I'm understanding
something I should accept, and am something of an arse for not
accepting. Yet when simply asked for other testimony to this effect,
there's no answer.
- S
.
- References:
- Re: when Jesus became God?
- From: rasqual
- Re: when Jesus became God?
- From: David Bowie
- Re: when Jesus became God?
- Prev by Date: Re: when Jesus became God?
- Next by Date: Re: when Jesus became God?
- Previous by thread: Re: when Jesus became God?
- Next by thread: Re: when Jesus became God?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
