I was able to identify the "ringleader" of the antis, who alerted all the others to my presence, calling them to action.
Posted on 03/16/2009 6:19:18 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
"God exists, and he's American" is the judgment of Dr. Milton Glass, fictional nuclear physicist from the acclaimed Alan Moore-Dave Gibbons comic Watchmen, when he learns that Jon Osterman, has come back from the dead. Osterman disputes Glass's judgment, but the new deity's protest rings as hollow as his promise of fealty to his first girlfriend.
In the story, Osterman dies in a freak lab accident that is the stuff of countless superhero origin stories. It utterly obliterates his body but leaves his mind intact and powerful. Osterman then re-creates himself from scratch. He is not just reborn but transfigured and renamed, as the world's oddest crime fighter: Dr. Manhattan. By the end of the tale, Manhattan even talks of Osterman as a different person.
Obviously, Dr. Manhattan looks different. He has the skin of a Smurf, the body of a Greek god. He crackles with energy and can manipulate other matter with the same ease that he reconstructed himself. Less obviously: His changed perceptions bracket him off from the rest of mankind. He can see things at the molecular level but is puzzled by basic human emotions and conventions. His women complain that they can't connect with him and he often walks around in his rebirthday suit. He perceives time differently as well -- the future and the past run together.
Dr. Manhattan is clearly a sort of god. After the mystery at the heart of Watchmen is resolved, he professes a newfound fondness for human life and muses, "perhaps I'll create some" -- elsewhere in the universe. But what sort of a god is he?
Enter: irony. One group that is not likely to come out in great numbers to see the new film Watchmen is members in good standing of the
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Well that was a barely adequate - if obvious cut-and-paste job to effect an attack on Orthodox Christendom.
I do not think it is correct not is it ultimately accurate to find valid theological trappings in a movie such as “Watchmen”.
That said, I have not seen the movie, and cannot muster up enough interest to overcome the exhorbitant ticket prices.
Utilizing such weakly constructed arguments is a painfully transparent, and flailing effort to vicariously savage Traditional Orthodox Christian doctrines regarding the nature of the Deity of G_d, Christ, and the Holy Spirit which proceeds from both, and is, with the Father and the Son, worshipped and glorified.
This is no more than a straw-man type of argument: creating an image and an interpretation of traditional Christianity that is adorned using one’s own terms and definitions (rather than consistently using the fully accurate terms and definitions which the Great Christian thinkers have developed and employed over the centuries.)
Holding forth the laughable notion that the “classical theological” view of creation [for example]’ex nihilo’ (Latin for “From nothing”), is “incompatible with the laws of conservation and energy” constitutes a illogical leap of faith across a wide and yawning chasm.
Such a notion first presupposes that we already know all there is to know about conservation and energy - even at that, this is a selective and not entirely scientific use of terms - it would be more encompassing to refer to “energy and matter”.
Secondly, it asserts blindly that G_D’s mastery of the elements is limited to using only what is there.
Talk to any reputable physicist acquainted with quantum mechanics, and more than passingly familiar with astrophysics, and they would fall on the floor laughing at such an idea.
If He is sovereign enough to alter the appearance and the composition of matter, the corresponding amounts of energy it utilizes, the rates at which it uses energy, and even the volume occupied by varying masses...then He is Sovereign enough to have created that matter from nothing in the first place.
Much of what is yet being learned has rewritten many popularly-held assumptions from just a few decades ago, and to assert that “ex nihilo” contradicts physics and summarizes an untenable theological position - is tantamount to lightly dismissing what we are learning every year.
Talk about a huge set of assumptions - positing the idea that Almighty G_d is limited and constrained by anything other than His own nature - is the granddaddy of them all.
There are laws of physics, and there are exceptions to some of those laws. We do not and cannot know all of them.
He created them just as He created the matter (and the antimatter)which they govern.
In His infinite wisdom, creativity, warmth, and humour, He has granted exceptions to some rules.
If G_d didn’t have a sense of humour, he would not have created servants like me (or some of you who are reading...), nor would he have done such things as - oh, braiding together certain of the “rings” around Saturn.
What reason could G_d have for that? Or for solar winds? Just because we don’t comprehend or understand, does not mean that He had no reason.
Even without a scientific basis (rooted in advanced telescope optics, space travel, and advancing quantum mechanics and astrophysics) the pre-1820 (read: pre-Joey Smith) prevailing view of creation - prevailed for a reason.
Simply stated, this rests in the unapproachable and Omnipotent majesty of G_d - not in the parsing of words, terms, and concepts from Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle - nor in dismissing them.
It does not amount to a “Hellenized” view of G_d, otherwise the Jewish Rabbis and thinkers would never have reconciled themselves to it.
It would be more in line with reality to recognise that the theological and philosophical views of the long pagan or pantheistic Greeks grew, matured and developed as their culture matured through history. It was their school of thought which came to embrace the Hebrew concept of “G_d” and ultimately the Hebrew G_d, regardless of how some of their word choices may have seemed to us rather generic, or alternately, overly specific.
Greek has three different words for our one English word, ‘love’: agape, phileo, and eros....each with a distinct meaning.
Hebrew has nine different words for our one English word, ‘hope’. Imagine trying to reconcile the words alone, never mind the word-pictures they sculpt in our brains and the cultural, religious, and philosophical ramifications thereof.
No wonder Paul said, “I preach Christ crucified - a stumblingblock to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks...”, and elsewhere he admonished them about their statue and temple erected to “an unknown god” - praising their religious intent, while at the same time upbraiding their foolish lack of understanding...
In what context were they to understand the G_D of whom Paul preached.
Early Greek pantheism saw the gods usually as beings in likeness with humans, primarily as a physical image - only larger in stature, greater in strength, health and intellect, and living forever - not vulnerable to natural death, and only able to be killed by another god of greater power and hierarchical stature.
In some instances these gods took the form of animals - real, or hybridized from imagination, like Pan or others.
Over time, these gods (in the view of the Greeks) became more fallible, more vulnerable to the full array of human weaknesses - physical, moral, spiritual.
Their character traits became less immutable and more capricious - one might even say more human-like
They could be physically wounded or even die, they had spirits, their spirits could be confined and/or subjected to punishments.
They could not only interact directly with the human race, but also, they could copulate with, and breed offspring through human females, or bear the children of human males.
This was never true of the Hebrew G_d, YHVh (a name so HOLY, it was considered THE “unpronounceable” name of G_d - and human lips were not ceremonially clean, nor fit to utter it...ONLY the Highest of the high priests, and only in the Holy of Holies inside the temple, once a year...)
The Lord Himself, described himself as being “from everlasting to everlasting”. Just because our finite human intellect lacks the capacity, the ability, or the recognition of terms to describe such, does not even vaguely indicate that G_d had a beginning point, will ever have an ending point, nor does it mean His creative capacity is subject to matter already in existence.
It is erroneous in the highest degree to contend that G-d has “overcome” human weaknesses...G_d the Father was NEVER, EVER subject to them to begin with.
Let’s look at the third law of thermodynamics - the law of entropy, so-called...
Simply stated, all things are in a constant state of breakdown, or deterioration. Matter/energy does not innately progress from a state of disorganization to a state of organization. Order does not self-determinately arise from chaos.
As “creationists” generically, we argue this point in support of our beliefs, and against the contention of Darwinists that life arose from chaos.
The concept that disparate elements of carbon in a heated primordial pool organized into amoeba, that single-celled amoeba organized themselves into some sort of survival-minded unit, that individuals in that unit began to specialize in their function (becoming digestive tract parts, bones, skin, eyes, brains and optic nerves in-between) is quite counterintuitive and tends to swim upstream against a veritable floodwash of common sense.
Apply the same essential principle to the spiritual realm.
Chaotic elements of matter and energy did not spontaneously appear, and from random whirlings, settle into intelligent patterns.
Nor did they respond in a sentient manner to one another, thereby developing a unified ‘mind’, operating beneficially for some conscious, “greater good”.
No sentient presence developed out of a disorganized void to manufacture a benevolent moral code.
A sentient “presence” already existed.
This “Presence” always did exist, and had an absolute moral center - it WAS itself, MORAL code.
You don’t believe this?
Contrast and compare muslim belief with that of Christianity (not mormonism - Christianity...they are not the same. Mormonism is NOT Christianity, and never has been.)
Islam says “Allah the merciful”, ascribing a level of mercy to allah.
The G_d of the Bible, (OT and NT) IS LOVE! He doesn’t simply just possess love in some quantity(ies), facet(s), or expression(s)...
He IS that quality, He embodies in perfect fullness ALL of its facets and ALL of its expressions. He is the fulfillment of “LOVE”.
You cannot begin with what is disorganized and imperfect in substance, proceed with that alone, and finish with order and perfection.
Regarding Dr Brunner - He may well have had many good moments/points on other subjects, but on the subject of the Trinity, he was flatly wrong - major figure in modern protestantism or not. You can further cite Hatch and Justin Martyr, and others - ad nauseum - and I can cite Hippolytus, Ambrose, Augustine...and we can have a citation/quotation “war of saints”.
It will not change the fact that Brunner is wrong about the trinity as were the others (their thoughts were incomplete in their pursuit, and form) and the Trinity is very clearly implicit in OT and NT doctrine, and has long been understood as such by Rabbis from before Christ’s time, to the great Maimonides, and numerous Jewish and traditional thinkers in-between - cheeky heresy of Arius notwithstanding.
Mormon “revelation” on the nature of G_d is a mass of dirty, foul heresies spat from the orifices of Joseph Smith and other avowed enemies of the real Christ, and I do not concede a single point to such wretched excrement.
On the subject of the Trinity, Brunner could not carry my books for me...strong as he was in some areas, he was deeply and fundamentally weak in others
Citing five other “scholars” to prop him up does nothing to help him.
It does not remove the resolution of “homousios” versus “homoiuosios”, or any other critical issues from the equation - it only betrays their ignorance and inability to cipher tone in reading, to separate implicit concepts from within explicit ones.
More than anything else it is reflective of the fact that even the best human minds often have limits - like the limits the mormon definition of omniscience artificially place upon G_d.
Some of what I have learned, I garnered from Edwin Goodrich formerly a Prof. at Multnomah Seminary (now passed on) one of the major scholarly contributors to the NIV.
I love debates like this...I eat them before breakfast. The local LDS “mishies” smile and run when they see me coming (okay, they actually hop onto their bikes...)
They are welcome to be the children of a “lesser god” if they really insist on such a choice, but I offer them, in a Spirit of Love, the REAL G_d who has no other gods before Him.
Ultimately, I would think they would be happier, since they are none of them ever, themselves, going to attain godhood on this, or any other planet.
My G-D and the mormon god are definitively different. Their god clearly has limits - many of them described by mortal man. My G_d has nonesuch.
A.A.C.
If you begin with {Nine widely different documented versions of} a flawed ‘vision’ and fail to challenge the ‘personages’ who appear in apparition form as to their bona fides {instead, simply assuming who they might be by inference} then you begin with a fundamentally and fatally flawed religion, prone to the need for constant revision, correction, reimagining, and “updating”.
“He is a self-made man and worships his creator.” –John Bright
placemarker
:)
I was able to identify the "ringleader" of the antis, who alerted all the others to my presence, calling them to action.
They are the same shepard.Sorry you don't get it both ways.
Not everything ya’ll say about my Church is untrue, but when ya’ll do, there are those who can correct your mistakes a whole lot better then I do.
Right now my focus is on how ya’ll will not say that ya’ll will stand up and say you have checked the truth about your evidences.
Since ya’ll are trying to convince people to follow ya’ll’s conclusions, people need to know this about ya’ll.
There are a few anti-Mormons who will choose to use untruths, and there are a lot of folks who are mislead by what these anti-Mormons say and they pass these untruths on as if they are true.
So I do not do the same thing he did and get banned from FR, please let me know what he did.
I see a need to be able to let readers know that there is more then what some folks say about my Church and I do not want to lose that ability here at FR.
thanks
fred
And yet you still cite no examples...
As far as “checking the truth” the is the point isn’t. We read the sources, we read related supporting documentation and post conclusions with sources. You come along and accuse us of having incomplete information and telling half truths. Yet you come with nothing to support your charge.
So again I ask, whose hand is empty?
It is not uncommon for posters who have been banned or quit in indignation to develop an anti-Free Republic attitude and to express themselves on other websites. But they must not then come back here trolling for more fodder for the other website.
Likewise, it is asking for trouble to go to the safety of another website and hurl personal insults at Jim Robinson, the Moderators or other Freepers.
thanks
fred
It is not uncommon for posters who have been banned...Speaking of getting banned...
Why do you capitalize "church"?
LOL...
That’s a good one...
I've seen it capitalized before...and wondered.
MY GOD IS NO LIAR.
This topic came up regarding a friend of mine who was baptized as an infant, was not confirmed and became a Born Again Christian as an adult. We were discussing whether she needed to be baptized again.
My ‘doctrine’ came from a Lutheran pastor (not the liberal ELCA but the conservative Missouri synod).
Furthermore, I discussed it with a Methodist minister and he agreed with the statement as well, saying she could either be confirmed as a believer or re-baptized if she chose a church that practiced believer baptism.
Finally, I spoke to my non-denominational pastor and he did put in a caveat. He said “if she has been confirmed AS A BELIEVER, then there is no need to be re-baptized. IF not, and she attends a church that practices believer baptism, then she should consider being baptized as a public statement of faith.
I stand by my statement. It is not hollow. Yet I suspect it is “meat” to someone who has only ever had spoiled milk (LDS doctrine).
I and other Christians are in full communion, as a believer, with the Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Assemblies of God, Calvary Chapel movement, non-denomminational churches, etc. We may disagree on finer points of doctrine yet we agree on the most important things: Jesus Christ is the Son of God, fully God and fully man, He came to earth, led a sinless life, was crucified for our sins, died and rose from the dead. We believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, not of works.
It didn't work for Joseph Smith back in the 1830s either!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.