On Feb 10, 4:05=A0pm, rasqual <scott.marqua...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 9:26=3DA0am, wrote:
>
> > rasqual wrote:
> > As far as God and other God's etc goes, we know that we have
> > God the Father. He is our God, and it is him and his Son,
> > Jesus Christ, who we wor****p. As for are there other God's?
> > well that is a question of speculation.
>
> Why? Why would anyone need to speculate about that at all?
>
> Serious question.
You know, when I first saw that, I had the same thought. Why would one
even wonder about something like that, let alone speculate about the
answer. But then I remembered that througout history various peoples
and civilizations have postulated the existance of various beings they
called "gods". So it seems to be part of the human condition to
speculate about the existence of "gods". Even prophets may not be
immune.
> orthodox Christianity does not speculate on such a thing at all.
> Neither does orthodox Judaism, or Islam.
Correct. But does that mean that there never has been an orthodox
Christian or an orthodox Jew or an orthodox Muslim who did speculate
aboiut anything? Science, or at least the scientific method of
inquiry, seems to me to require a certain amount of speculation.
Doesn't that usually call for the investigator to wonder about
something and then to make inquiries and tests to determine whether
the facts sup****t a given "solution" to the question.
Another thing I have to say about the need to speculate is that it
could have been just an easy way to say, "If we want to discuss some
matters, the only basis for it is to hypothesize anbd then try to
check the known facts against the hypothesis. That is perhaps another
way to say specullate.
> Why do Mormons insist on speaking as if they're monotheists, but
> retain against all need to do so some nagging sense that they need to
> leave the door open to speculations that there might be other gods?
Beats me. Why do orthodox christians claim to be monotheist when most
if not all think that God has a Son (Jesus Christ) and that there is
much evidence in the New Testamnt that Jesus not only claimed to be
God but was (and is) God, but not God the Father? Maybe in both cases
it is a lack of proper words in the language. Maybe it is the need to
try to be more like Jews and Muslims, with regard to claims of belief
in God. Probably to answer that question would require speculation.<G>
> What freaks me out -- and I suspect many other of Mormonism's critics
> -- is the extent to which Mormons will allow their most certain-
> sounding statements to be qualified as not certain when they're
> pressed on matters which have never been certain in their history
> (only speculative), and which indeed could be utterly discarded
> without consequence.
Your opinion? You are welcome to it.
> Seriously.
> > If there are, we do
> > not wor****p them, nor do we have anything to do with them,
> > nor do they have anything to do with us. If they exist, then
> > they have no influence over people, things etc, that are
> > within our realm of understanding.
> CFR.
CFR for what? For experience? My own reference for that truth would be
that I have no particular interest in whether there are Gods other
than the Godhead, and if there are I certainly don't have anything to
do with them, nor as far as I know, do they have any incluence etc on
any of us.
> That sounds like speculation. There's a difference between claiming
> that they have no such influence, and claiming that we can't know
> whether they do. I don't know how you'd be justified in claiming the
> latter without some authoritative word on that.
Well, where is your authoritative word on what you say we believe?
> > Think of it as being like our relation****p to a star a
> > million light-years away. There may be a planet like our own
> > near that star, there may be life like us on that planet.
> > But if there is or isn't, we have no knowledge, nor are we
> > likely to find out. Whatever happens on that planet a
> > million light-years away, has absolutely no bearing on us at
> > all - that's if the planet even exists. We can speculate
> > that other planets like ours probably do exist, but such
> > existence has no relevance to us whatsoever.
>
> But that planet would be part of "all things." If God created "all
> things," that planet is one of those things.
Please umor me for a minute. In the Book of Genesis, are the words "In
the beginning". The beginning of what? The beginning of everything, or
the beginning of the story that is being related here, or what? Here
is what one lexicon gives for the meaning of the word translated in
Genesis 1:1 as "beginning".
Quote
re'****yth {ray-sheeth'}
Hebrew: noun feminine
Possible Definitions:
1) first, beginning, best, chief
1a) beginning
1b) first
1c) chief
1d) choice part
re'****yth {ray-sheeth'}
Hebrew: noun feminine
from the same as 7218;
Strong's Number 7225
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament - 2097e
End Quote
Someone had to decide which of the various meanings for this word to
use. Does it really express whatever the author meant by using that
Hebrew noun? How do you know that it even was one of the words listed
here?
Then jump to John 1 and you will also find in John 1:1 the English
word "beginning". Here is what I found on that one.
Quote
arche {ar-khay'}
Greek: noun feminine
Possible Definitions:
1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a
series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing, of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
arche {ar-khay'}
Greek: noun feminine
from 756;
Translated as:
beginning (40 times)
principality (8 times)
corner (2 times)
first (2 times)
misc. (6 times)
Total: 58 times
Strong's Number 746
TDNT - 1:478,81
End Quote
So here again, although the words suggested for use in translation
seem to me to be closer together and indeed more able to sup****t the
conventional understanding that before the "beginning" there was
nothing. But if there was a beginning before which there was nothng,
does that mean that before this "beginnng" not even God existed? Do I
even need to speculate about that? Of course not. I merely say that it
is not clear to me what was meant by "the beginning". I am satisfed to
think that it merely means the start of what the Bible or the Book of
John, or whatever, is talking about. It says nothing at all about what
may be infinitely many things the Bible is not talking about.
I think the LDS teaching, and perhaps many LDS believe, that there are
many, perhaps infinitely many, things that are yet to be revealed, and
it is very limiting to hold to only what has been revealed and
recorded in one book or one small library. But do we really have a
common ground of understanding for discussing such matters with those
who talk about speculation?
> Let's put it this way: when you look up in the sky at night, is it
> possible that some of the photons from stars out there are the
> consequence of another god's handiwork? Not Fathers?
Of course that is possible, as far as I can tell for some photons (if
photons are real) to come from stars light years away. But to answer
that question about they being a consequence of some other god, calls
for speculation. If I were pinned down, I would have to say that we
simply have no revealed knowledge on such matters as that, but my own
hunch is that the question makes no sense.
> I'm not asking whether you think it's so. I'm asking whether you feel
> obliged to acknowledge that it's possible. Do you believe that nothing
> you know rules that out?
I have no idea what "the beginnning" was. Hence I have no idea if
anything happened before the beginning. I had my mortal beginning in
January 1930. But I am fairly confident that my parents had a
beginning 20 and 22 years earlier, and their parents had their mortal
beginnings backin the previous century. I have had several beginnings,
and so have you.
> > So as far as we are concerned, did God
> > create all things? Most definitely.
With that definition yes. But we also have at least one scriptural
reference that it is not true that everything that is was made.
Doctrine and Covenants 93: 29 Man was also in the beginning with God.
Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither
indeed can be.
And there is that pesky word "begining" again.
Snip
> You speak of extremely distant things where their influence is
> intuitively nil. But that's a bit or a parlour trick. Distance and
> lack of influence is relative. I could claim that a particular dozen
> Kenyans are as irrelevant to my existence as you aver these
> speculative other gods might be, and I'd be darned close to being
> exactly as correct as you. But I'd also be dead wrong, and I'd be
> wrong in claiming that "as far as I'm concerned," they don't exist.
Yet on a tem****al day to day basis you would not be wrong in that
statement.
> > We can speculate that there probably are other God's, and
> > such a possibility isn't outside the scope of our doctrine.
>
> Would ruling out the possibility in ANY WAY ruin any doctrines of
> which you are CERTAIN?
Indeed it would rule out the doctrine that there are things that God
has not reveled to us, but yet will.
> That's a really im****tant question.
Wth a really im****tant answer.
Yes, I suppose it goes without saying that LDS are automatically
wrong.
Snip
> > The only thing that is relevant to us is our relation****p
> > with God the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ. I would even
> > go so far as to say excessive speculation about the presence
> > of other gods could jea****dise our relation****p with God.
> Fine. But the real question is this: would being certain that there
> ARE no other gods, jeopardize your relation****p with God?
> Why or why not?
I know what passages in the Bible seem to indicate that there is only
one God, but I don't know whether that is God the Father or The Son of
God, or the Godhead. I am willing to accept the idea of a trinity so
long as I do not need to accept the toruous explanation of that word
that has been concocted by men. But I don't really know of anything in
the Bible that says there is no God other than the Godhead members.
Nor do I know of anything in the Bible that says that there is any
other God similar to the Godhead.
> - S
|
