Different Gods

[Albion]

Personally, I can see where the person my co-workers know is not the exact same person that some of friends know, or even that some of my family think they know. They all may describe me differently, and some would be surprised to learn some things about me they don't know or haven't seen. The only way any one person could ever really know the entire me is to get inside me and my mind; to feel what I feel and to see and think what I do. Impossible.

If we can't do that with another human being, how could we possibly know God? Even Christ did not tell his disciples "everything", nor could they comprehend right away everything he DID tell them. Yet we think we can figure out God and that our view is the only correct one, of course.

I know my view of God is different than that of a Muslim, a Hindu, and many other Christians. It is likely different than the views of people within my own parish, or of my friends and family. So do we all have different gods? Of course not; we have different views of the same God.

In the early Church, there were many varying views on the nature of God and of who Jesus Christ was. So it should not surprise us if we can't agree on those things now. What does surprise ME is that some think that this is critical to our faith and salvation. What kind of god would share this knowledge with only a few and purposely bamboozle the rest of us, if it was so important? The Gospel does not focus on whether the disciples of Jesus understand the nature or "persons" of God; rather it focuses on how well they follow him in seeking the Realm of God.

It's all a matter of the degree to which the perceptions differ.

If we are saying that the person was smiling at one time and gloomy at another, we understand. BUT you cannot say that one person's description of Mr. X as having six arms, for example, and the next person's claim that he was seen to have no arms at all amounts to just different interpretations or vantage points.

 

[Ran77]

This is pointless. The reason those Christians think LDS worship a different God or have a different Jesus is because you have assigned the name, in the BOM for instance, to a concept that is NOT Jesus as he is known in the Bible. So either the Bible is wrong or the BOM et al is wrong. If you don't think it amounts to creating another Jesus, let's just say it is seen to be to be a poor and inaccurate copy of the one and only Jesus. AND it is not explained away merely by saying there are different interpretations. It goes beyond interpretation. That's the answer to your question, I believe.

Is there a reason you keep moving away from the Bible? Because what you offer here does not solve the situation between the non-LDS Christians who use the Bible exclusively and still have differences in their perspective on the nature of God. Why not deal with that?

 

[Ran77]

It's all a matter of the degree to which the perceptions differ.

If we are saying that the person was smiling at one time and gloomy at another, we understand. BUT you cannot say that one person's description of Mr. X as having six arms, for example, and the next person's claim that he was seen to have no arms at all amounts to just different interpretations or vantage points.

So, according to your logic, in our example we can expect to see a six armed Ran running around somewhere. Is that correct?

 

[Ran77]

Personally, I can see where the person my co-workers know is not the exact same person that some of friends know, or even that some of my family think they know. They all may describe me differently, and some would be surprised to learn some things about me they don't know or haven't seen. The only way any one person could ever really know the entire me is to get inside me and my mind; to feel what I feel and to see and think what I do. Impossible.

If we can't do that with another human being, how could we possibly know God? Even Christ did not tell his disciples "everything", nor could they comprehend right away everything he DID tell them. Yet we think we can figure out God and that our view is the only correct one, of course.

I know my view of God is different than that of a Muslim, a Hindu, and many other Christians. It is likely different than the views of people within my own parish, or of my friends and family. So do we all have different gods? Of course not; we have different views of the same God.

In the early Church, there were many varying views on the nature of God and of who Jesus Christ was. So it should not surprise us if we can't agree on those things now. What does surprise ME is that some think that this is critical to our faith and salvation. What kind of god would share this knowledge with only a few and purposely bamboozle the rest of us, if it was so important? The Gospel does not focus on whether the disciples of Jesus understand the nature or "persons" of God; rather it focuses on how well they follow him in seeking the Realm of God.

Wow! Excellent observation. Exactly, in this life no two of us are going to see a person exactly in the same way. And as you said, there is much more to God than we can hope to understand in this life. So why should we think that any of us will get it 100% right. All that any of us can do is try our hardest to understand the nature of God and love Him.

The "you worship a different God" is just a tactic to divide us from our common worship of Heavenly Father. I can't imagine that God wants us to criticize each other over something like this.

 

[Albion]

So, according to your logic, in our example we can expect to see a six armed Ran running around somewhere. Is that correct?

Substitute the LDS beliefs about Jesus for the Bible's information and it's a good analogy. The six-armed Ran would, in that comparision, be believed in implicitly by millions of people and pictured in lots of church publications as having six arms, yes.

 

[Martinius]

...In this life no two of us are going to see a person exactly in the same way. And as you said, there is much more to God than we can hope to understand in this life. So why should we think that any of us will get it 100% right. All that any of us can do is try our hardest to understand the nature of God and love Him.

The "you worship a different God" is just a tactic to divide us from our common worship of Heavenly Father. I can't imagine that God wants us to criticize each other over something like this.

In your other thread on a similar topic, I contended that to be Christian does NOT mean that one must agree with a long list of doctrines; to be Christian means to follow Christ in one's life. Jesus provided many examples of those who did NOT know or adhere to the requirements of Judaism, yet he found them to be "close to the Kingdom of God".

If someone thinks that there are seven persons in the One God, and that they all are hairy, one eyed beings with four arms, I couldn't care less. Nor, do I contend, does God as long as that person faithfully seeks the Realm of God by living according to God's will and by placing their faith (trust) in God.

To my way of thinking (and it appears, to the way Jesus thought, spoke and lived) anyone of whatever religion (or no "religion" at all) can live in God's graces. He created no limits or boundaries to who could attain the Kingdom. Yet so many people today, for whatever reason, seem deaf and blind to what Jesus clearly said and did in the Gospels. I can only picture Jesus in heaven shaking his head in bewilderment and frustration over the rock-headedness (and hard-heartedness) of the people he came to shepherd and save.

 

[Albion]

If someone thinks that there are seven persons in the One God, and that they all are hairy, one eyed beings with four arms, I couldn't care less. Nor, do I contend, does God as long as that person faithfully seeks the Realm of God by living according to God's will and by placing their faith (trust) in God.

Fair enough. However, that means it also doesn't matter if you worship Krishna, Allah, Wotan, or some other deity, so long as you live right?

To my way of thinking (and it appears, to the way Jesus thought, spoke and lived) anyone of whatever religion (or no "religion" at all) can live in God's graces.

That would seem to be the answer to the above question then.

 

[Ran77]

Substitute the LDS beliefs about Jesus for the Bible's information and it's a good analogy. The six-armed Ran would, in that comparision, be believed in implicitly by millions of people and pictured in lots of church publications as having six arms, yes.

And no matter how many people believed in a six-armed Ran, that person would not exist. There would still be the one and only Ran who has two arms. (I counted them. There are only two.)

It doesn't matter what people believe about any individual, they remain who they are. It is the beliefs that are mistaken. And most importantly, it doesn't create a new individual. Just misconceptions about the one that exists. Being LDS or thinking Ran has six arms does not change that reality.

 

[Albion]

And no matter how many people believed in a six-armed Ran, that person would not exist.

Yes, that's what I'd say. And once more, you have your answer to the question of the thread.

It is the beliefs that are mistaken. And most importantly, it doesn't create a new individual. Just misconceptions about the one that exists. Being LDS or thinking Ran has six arms does not change that reality.

I may owe you an apology. I never meant to suggest that an actual second Jesus or God exists and we take our chioce. When it is said that LDS worship a different or another God, what is meant is that they have been completely redesigned so that what they represent is changed decisively. You think that saying it's the same one makes all the difference. Those Christians you asked about think it AMOUNTS to or is like having an alternate one, so basic are the differences. I agree that you do not think in those terms.

 

[Ran77]

In your other thread on a similar topic, I contended that to be Christian does NOT mean that one must agree with a long list of doctrines; to be Christian means to follow Christ in one's life. Jesus provided many examples of those who did NOT know or adhere to the requirements of Judaism, yet he found them to be "close to the Kingdom of God".

If someone thinks that there are seven persons in the One God, and that they all are hairy, one eyed beings with four arms, I couldn't care less. Nor, do I contend, does God as long as that person faithfully seeks the Realm of God by living according to God's will and by placing their faith (trust) in God.

To my way of thinking (and it appears, to the way Jesus thought, spoke and lived) anyone of whatever religion (or no "religion" at all) can live in God's graces. He created no limits or boundaries to who could attain the Kingdom. Yet so many people today, for whatever reason, seem deaf and blind to what Jesus clearly said and did in the Gospels. I can only picture Jesus in heaven shaking his head in bewilderment and frustration over the rock-headedness (and hard-heartedness) of the people he came to shepherd and save.

I agree.

Obviously, I think I have it right, but that has never made me want to criticize those who believe differently than I do. If you worship the God of the Bible then you worship the same God as me, even if you do it in a totally different matter. I'm just glad that you have found something that works for you and brings you closer to the Creator.

It is so much more joyous to celebrate in our sameness than to focus on our differences.

 

[Ran77]

Yes, that's what I'd say. And once more, you have your answer to the question of the thread.

Then if that other person / God does not exist, the argument about worshipping another God is vaccuous. Because that other God does not exist. There is only the One God - as I stated from the start.

 

[Albion]

Then if that other person / God does not exist, the argument about worshipping another God is vaccuous. Because that other God does not exist. There is only the One God - as I stated from the start.

Read that post of mine that you are responding to one more time. I edited it by making an addition.

 

[Martinius]

Fair enough. However, that means it also doesn't matter if you worship Krishna, Allah, Wotan, or some other deity, so long as you live right?

If God "hears" all prayers, does God selectively hear only prayers addressed by Christians (or even just certain Christians)? If someone addresses God as "Allah" does God not "hear" that prayer? Isn't our "name" for God our own particular version, not really the same as what was used by the first Christians? Why do we think that our word for God is the only one, or even the best one?

An even more important question, perhaps too radical for most people, is: Does God really require our worship? Does God need our worship? If so, why?

When I think of that concept, I think of a delusional, despotic tyrant who insists that all his subjects do homage to him. THAT is not the God I envision. To me, most worship is derived from superstitious beliefs and ideas: "If I give a god enough homage the deity I am worshipping will favor me, my family and whatever I do". This is a concept that should have disappeared with the Gospels, but unfortunately we still think that if we honor our god(s) enough we will benefit some way in this life (or in the next). That is the way the Greeks, Romans, Norse and various pagans saw their deities! That is NOT the way Jesus taught us to think of and relate to God. Another way we seem to blithely ignore the core teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.

Would we not give greater worship to God if we actually lived our lives according to God's commandments, as taught and exemplified by Jesus? Do we not honor God with our words and rituals, but too often dis-honor God in our hearts and in our daily lives?

 

[Albion]

If God "hears" all prayers, does God selectively hear only prayers addressed by Christians (or even just certain Christians)? If someone addresses God as "Allah" does God not "hear" that prayer? Isn't our "name" for God our own particular version, not really the same as what was used by the first Christians? Why do we think that our word for God is the only one, or even the best one?

Well, I think more is implied than just what name is used.

An even more important question, perhaps too radical for most people, is: Does God really require our worship? Does God need our worship? If so, why?

When I think of that concept, I think of a delusional, despotic tyrant who insists that all his subjects do homage to him. THAT is not the God I envision. To me, most worship is derived from superstitious beliefs and ideas: "If I give a god enough homage the deity I am worshipping will favor me, my family and whatever I do". This is a concept that should have disappeared with the Gospels, but unfortunately we still think that if we honor our god(s) enough we will benefit some way in this life (or in the next). That is the way the Greeks, Romans, Norse and various pagans saw their deities! That is NOT the way Jesus taught us to think of and relate to God. Another way we seem to blithely ignore the core teachings of Jesus in the Gospels.

Would we not give greater worship to God if we actually lived our lives according to God's commandments, as taught and exemplified by Jesus? Do we not honor God with our words and rituals, but too often dis-honor God in our hearts and in our daily lives?

Very well. That's a coherent and consistent theology. I was doing nothing other than asking you to think through the logical consequences of what you first said, and you did just that.

I disagree with some of the premises and conclusions, but I am not offended that we disagree. My main objection, if I had to go into that, is that God IMO has to be received as he is, not as we think a god should be...IOW, a god who is worthy of us.

 

[Martinius]

Well, I think more is implied than just what name is used.

I would agree that we imply things by the names and titles we use. Those are human constructs, however, and not by God's command.

That's a coherent and consistent theology. I was doing nothing other than asking you to think through the logical consequences of what you first said, and you did just that.

Thanks, those are the most thoughtful and respectful words I have read about one of my posts in a while.

I disagree with some of the premises and conclusions, but I am not offended that we disagree. My main objection, if I had to go into that, is that God IMO has to be received as he is, not as we think a god should be...IOW, a god who is worthy of us.

That's fair, and I respect your right to come to different conclusions. I do not claim to be right about all this, which is one of my key points (probably no one is completely right). I also think that we should receive God as God is, which may NOT be the same as our individual (or even group) perceptions and prejudices would have us view the Lord.

Peace.
Martinius

 

[Albion]

I would agree that we imply things by the names and titles we use. Those are human constructs, however, and not by God's command.

What I meant was that if one worships, let's say, Wotan, that is not just worshipping Jehovah or the Trinity by an alternate name.

Thanks, those are the most thoughtful and respectful words I have read about one of my posts in a while.

That's fair, and I respect your right to come to different conclusions. I do not claim to be right about all this, which is one of my key points (probably no one is completely right). I also think that we should receive God as God is, which may NOT be the same as our individual (or even group) perceptions and prejudices would have us view the Lord.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Ran77]

I may owe you an apology. I never meant to suggest that an actual second Jesus or God exists and we take our chioce. When it is said that LDS worship a different or another God, what is meant is that they have been completely redesigned so that what they represent is changed decisively. You think that saying it's the same one makes all the difference. Those Christians you asked about think it AMOUNTS to or is like having an alternate one, so basic are the differences. I agree that you do not think in those terms.

Gotcha.

No apology necessary. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Enkil]

If they claim to worship the God of Abraham then I would say they worship the same God. They may have a lot of divergent ideas associated with that worship, but it isn't a seperate entity that we are talking about. Just a different set of beliefs.

If you can't tell the difference between the God of Christianity and the god of Islam, it's nowonder you cannot see the differences they both have with the god(s) of Mormonism. It's basic logic that 1 +1 must always equal two. It is logical then that if the god of Mormonism is an exalted man, whereas the God of Christianity is uncreated, we can know right away that these two things are not identical. A focus on the superficial nature of a thing, such as a name or a title, is the principle error the vast majority of you all are making. The issue here is that of substance, of nature, of character, and every other thing that one must make an effort to see. I notice that you punted on my request to give the full Mormon view of God(s), but instead are focusing on silly arguments about which Ran is the real Ran or other trivial matters. These are just games. The real problem is easily solved, and it is done so with a simple analysis of the differences between the God of Christianity and the God(s) of Mormonism. If Paul speaks of another Jesus, and another Gospel, and a perverted Gospel, it stands to reason then that not everyone who cries Lord, Lord is speaking of the same Lord, or of the same Gospel, or of the same Messiah. There are false Christs a'many, and voices a'many, but the voice of God is eternal and His sheep hear Him. There is no confusion here. There is no concord with Belial. But if all of you wish to be in agreement with each other, in effect you are denying the existence of all your religions, as not one of them agrees or does not contradict one another.

 

[Enkil]

An even more important question, perhaps too radical for most people, is: Does God really require our worship? Does God need our worship? If so, why?

I don't think God requires our worship, but He most certainly is worthy of it. And that is why we worship Christ, because He is worthy of it. There is no other reaction possible. Those who do not worship God, simply do not know Him.

The greater question is, why should we take your speculation over the words of the Bible? If the Bible is not a sufficient authority for who God is, why should we believe you? Where do you get your authority? And if the Bible is a sufficient authority for who God is, why don't you use it?

 

[Martinius]

What I meant was that if one worships, let's say, Wotan, that is not just worshipping Jehovah or the Trinity by an alternate name.

Perhaps I get hung up with the idea of worship, which I see as harkening back to pagan religions, as described in my earlier post. Let me ask this question:

If one "worships" Wotan, or says that they have belief or faith in a diety named Wotan, yet this person lives their life completely within the teachings of Jesus in the Gospel, what are they? They can't be called "a Christian" (meaning a member of a Christian religion), yet they could be considered "Christian", meaning they lead an exemplary life that is in concordance with God's will (even if they may not be initially aware of the diety we call "God").

Then let me ask another question:

Would that same person be acceptable to Christ? My reading of the Gospels tells me that the answer is yes, and this person could be like one of those non-Jews that Jesus said was "near the Kingdom of God". If that person met Jesus (all hypothetical here) and was attracted by his person and his message, yet knew little or nothing about Christian doctrines, rituals or practices, would Jesus welcome him as a person of great faith, as a disciple? My response, again based on what Jesus ACTUALLY said and did, is yes.

No matter how much we insist that "right belief" and adhering to correct doctrines and rituals is the route to heaven, Jesus clearly tells us otherwise. Not that those are necessarily bad, but that there is something else that is much more important. And if an insistence on "right belief" and accepting a creed (which Jesus never asked anyone to do) prevents one from being a true disciple, that person should step back and think about what is really essential to being that disciple.

I would have no problem accepting someone who worshipped "Wotan" as my neighbor, especially if they treated me as THEIR neighbor as well. I have known many people who claim to be Christians who neither accepted nor practiced the idea of treating others as their neighbor (even less so as themselves). There are, unfortunately, many Christians who are NOT Christian. That, to me, is much more important than agreeing on how many persons God is comprised of, or the relationship between them.