Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Furthermore, Cherbonnier provided the Biblical example of how those without a body should be pitied. Hence, the logic of the Father having an exalted body is perfectly warranted.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
In YOUR theology Bill, those demons were angels who were never designed to have a body in the first place. In LDS theology, it makes sense, because it IS preferable for ANY spirit to have a body.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7up: You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone). .... Furthermore, in the first article Cherbonnier says that , "To insist that He (God) is omnipresent would be to imprison Him."
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
You claim that God is literally omnipresent, but in a "unique form". Tell me Bill, what is the "form" of an omnipresence. You and I both know that this is a contradiction. You claim that you believe that God exists outside time and space, yet also within time and space, yet you contradict yourself again when you say that God is not diffused throughout time and space in the Universe.
You have to claim all of these contradictory concepts, because you know that Cherbonnier disagrees with the concept of a God who is literally spread over the entire Universe as an omnipresent spirit which is everywhere at once.
7up: (The idea that God can exist as a human being) is an essential premise of Christianity. The only difference is that LDS apply that concept to God the Father as well as to God the Son, because Jesus Christ is the "express image of the Father's person" (Heb 1).
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up: You don't have any Biblical grounds to make that assertion. The actual word implies a physical copy. Indeed, Jesus is an exact representation of God the Father in every sense.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
There is no such thing as "physical impressions" of personality. You made that up.
7up: Indeed, Jesus is an exact representation of God the Father in every sense.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7UP: Cherbonnier went beyond the concept of whether or not matter is evil. He says that to insist that God is omnipresent would be to "imprison Him". He argues, essentially, that the preferred existence is a bodily and corporeal existence within space and time.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up: I agree that the "matter as evil" is an unchallenged point. I don't know why you brought it up, as if it was part of the discussion. You simply attempted to misdirect, by arguing a point that I wasn't making in the first place.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up: Wrong. The "spirits" being referred to, in YOUR theology, weren't created to have bodies in the first place, and thus were not created to have a resurrection.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up: Furthermore, to think otherwise and think that Deity is better off without a body, would be to say that God condemned Jesus to have to exist in a body as if it would put limits on the Son of God.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
7up: And "traditional Christian" critics of the LDS faith, speak of "God in a body" as if it would make the Person of God "finite".
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
"Jesus answered, That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:3-8)
This passage clearly says that “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” According to the misuse of the verse in the next chapter, John 4:24, that would mean that anybody who is baptized with the Holy Spirit doesn't have a body.
7up: "Traditional theologians" often speak of God as a being completely different in kind from us, not only in space and time, but also in a "metaphysical sense", and Cherbonnier argues against that.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
"It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical. In biblical terms, it occurred after creation. That is, a conflict of wills presupposes that both parties share a single logical context, a common world of thought and action. In this sense, the doctrine of creation is a doctrine of continuity, not discontinuity. " -Cherbonnier
As you can see, Cherbonnier is saying that God and creation have the same kind of metaphysical existence. Got it?
7up: He argues that our existence is similar to the existence of God and not "entirely other" as Christians often claim.
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
Originally posted by Bill the Cat
View Post
God the Father living a mortal life like Jesus and having the same nature and metaphysical existence is just another step in that logical conclusion, which also happens to be consistent with scripture, who speaks of the Father having life in himself just as Jesus does (in the context of resurrection) and the Father showing the Son what the Father has done.
-7up
Comment