Might as well pray to a rock.That phrase exactly describes my
experience praying to the Mormon God in the process known as "Moroni's
Challenge".Pet rocks were quite a craze in the 70's. And
like the pet rock, the Mormon God's behavior in answering prayers depends
entirely upon the superstitious mind of the believer - to endow the rock with
lifelike attributes, give the rock credit for random good things in your life by
calling them "blessings", and explain random bad things in your life as
Mr. Peteson implies that the mover is involved in a discretion of the movement
perhaps similar to a game of chess. It denotes nothing other than to imply that
there may be a capricious god that plays with man's fate not so different
from Greek mythology.
A secular humanist magazine once published a satire on this perfect deity
written by a professor at a London university. I wrote in a letter of protest
(which the magazine published), in which I said that no one believes in such a
deity, regardless of what the philosophers say. As noted here, praying to such a
being is like praying to a rock. Instead, we pray to a being who has feelings,
who has pathos, and who loves his children (see Givens' The God Who Weeps).
Who else could (or would want to) save us from this world of tears?The London university professor misunderstood me, of course, making a reply
that plaintively suggested that Anglican preachers he had seen preach such a
God. (Really? Maybe in theory, but not in practice...)
Vanka,Sorry to hear that. But it does not describe my experience nor
that of many others I know.You classify God and religion as the
result of a superstitious mind. Do you not know anyone who is logical yet
religious? I certainly know a few.I think you might enjoy the
pigeonholing and "poking the bear" but a realistic sweep of church goers
would reveal a very wide set of experiences that well exceed your description.
Twin Lights wrote:"Sorry to hear that. But it does not describe
my experience nor that of many others I know."I never said it
did."You classify God and religion as the result of a
superstitious mind. Do you not know anyone who is logical yet religious? I
certainly know a few."Superstitious thinking and logic are not
mutually exclusive."I think you might enjoy the pigeonholing and
'poking the bear' but a realistic sweep of church goers would reveal a
very wide set of experiences that well exceed your description."Huh? Not sure what your point is.
RE: Transcendent, ImmanentIn the beginning was the Word and the Word
was with God and the Word(logos) was God John 1:1. For the Greeks, the concept
of the logos is the interrelationship of thought, word and being.John dropped a theological bombshell on the Greek philosophers. Jesus was not
an impersonal concept, but incarnation(John 1:14) of the eternal Logos. Logos
of God when applied to Jesus meant far more than the Word of God more than
divine revelation, but in Jesus we have also the reason and Mind of the
Cosmos.God is uncreated Logic in his very being and provides order,
regularity, law and intelligibility to the cosmos, not as some impersonal soul
but as a personal creator: through him all things were made…(John 1:3)God
the Father reveals himself immanently vicariously through the Son and Spirit,
the Godhead is wholly” transcendent “and unable to be
comprehended.The Holy Spirit is also expressed as an”
immanence of God”. The Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a
dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love and well
The problem is not so much with Aristotle, but with rigid, dogmatic and
theological thinking being applied to philosophy and especially science. When
the “doctors” of the church became acquainted with Aristotle they
were very impressed his logic and scientific reasoning and so wanted to
incorporate his writing into church theology.This whole project was
folly but it left us with an ancient philosopher who is still a bit too high up
on a (theological?) perch for my taste. And so refuting Aristotle, as Dr.
Perterson has done, leaves one with the impression that philosophy with a
capital P has been thusly refuted. And this is too bad because
believers and non-believers alike can find a treasure of rewards in reading
philosophers closer to our time. The same Mr. Whitehead cited in this article
said William James (a very “religion friendly” philosopher) was one
of the four greatest philosophers who ever lived.I’m inclined
to agree, but even if not he’s certainly more relevant than Aristotle
simply by virtue of the fact that he had a couple thousand more years of human
knowledge at his disposal.
Ah Vanka. See you are back. Haven't seen you on these boards for some time.
I recognized you right away....
At age five I was given a "god-ite". This spectacular gift was bestowed
upon me by a lanky high plains Wyoming cowboy who frequented mom and dad's
German/American restaurant in Pinedale, WY. Along with this gift came the
explanation that it was special and had to be buried for 3 months in a hill of
my choosing. Instruction were given. The cowboy explained that something
wonderful would happen, eventually. He walked away smiling. That
summer I was sent off the live with my Austrian grandparents in Graz. My
grandmother saved my soul one day when she had me baptized in a Catholic church,
fearing my eternal soul would be forever in limbo if she didn't. Dad
wasn't big on religion. I also learned how to pray some. And so, given my
newly found abilities, I prayed for my rock, buried there in the Wyoming dirt.
I prayed that it would be all that a "goite" could be. That
fall, on a frosty morning, I dug it up, broke it open and viola'. Amazing!
God did answer prayers after all.
@Skeptic,a capricious god that plays with man's fate not so different from
Greek mythology.Paul refutes the Greek philosophers ,on “Mars
hill”. For in him we live and move and have our Being...(Acts
17:28)Creation is dependent on God for it’s very existence.Plato understood that you have to have absolutes or nothing else has meaning.
But the difficulty facing Plato was his gods were not big enough to meet the
need. In Greek literature the Fates sometimes seem to be controlling the gods,
and sometimes the gods seem to be controlling the fates. Why the confusion?
Because everything fails in their thinking at this point. ,because their
limited gods are not big enough. That is why we need an infinite personal
God.The trinity in the O.T.:(Gen 1:26 KJV) …Let us make man in
Our own(spiritual) image and likeness…”verse 27 ..”So God
created man in His Own image…”. If there more than one God this
would read, in “Their image”. God who gives life to the
dead and Calls into Being things that were not(Romans 4:17)
@VankaPerhaps you should read the whole challenge, not just the
popular known bits, or better yet, read the whole chapter.Then you
might begin to understand why you haven't received an answer.--Regarding the article,I believe this whole thing
comes down to a couple of simple arguments.Either there is a God or
there isn't.If their is a God, he must be a personal and
caring God with an absolutely definable doctrine based on perfect knowledge and
with perfect reason for all his actions. some of which has been revealed through
his prophets,otherwise he is not a God, and certainly no one worth
worshiping or praying to.
Okay, God. I'm prayin' to ya. On my terms, on my turf, and according
to my commands. Why won't you gimme what I ask for? Why won't you
answer me? Okay. 'Nuff. I'm done, and I'm outta here.
I'm gonna do what I wanna do, with a capital "I." Hey, all you
guys, you're nuthin' but superstitious nut cases. There is no God; he
didn't answer me, and he didn't answer you.This pretty
well illustrates how it must be for the quitters who never get an answer.
Pretty pathetic. Don't you understand that you receive no witness until
after the trial of your faith?
@Hospitality. You seem to have a real swallow view of your fellow man (children
of God) or an over bloated grandiose view of yourself, either way it
doesn't appear very Christian.
Orthodox Christians are keen to distinguish immutability from immovability. We
believe in the immanence and personality of God. To say otherwise is
misrepresentative. For God to be "unmoved" simply means that he is the
first cause in a chain of effects; he is not a link in an infinite chain of
events, as Mormons and those who deny the Big Bang would believe. Dr. Peterson,
you should listen to the scientists in your church. They recognize the
incompatibility of the traditional Mormon god and modern cosmology.The authors speak as though the orthodox Christian has no good scriptural
reason to believe in the unchangeableness and eternity of God. How do the LDS
integrate the following Scripture into their worldview? Numbers 23:19; Psalms
33:11; 102:26-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17. The LDS god was once a man who
sinned. The Scriptures find no place for this kind of god. Conceivably,
there's nothing to prevent the LDS god from falling from godhood, either,
as there will always be "an opposition in all things." For this reason,
the fallible Mormon god isn't any more trustworthy than the capricious
I find it interesting when some posters claim to be experts on what Mormons
believe (though they themselves are not Mormons) and then post questions on how
Mormons "integrate" certain scriptures into "their worldview".
So which is it? Why the need to ask the question if you are the expert.There is no "LDS god". There is only God. Mormons do not
believe God "was once a man who sinned." The scriptures referenced are
also contained in scriptures read, studied and believed by Mormons, i.e. the Old
and New Testaments.Mormons do not believe God is "fallible"
either. I am perfectly fine when folks disagree with our doctrine.
However, they don't get to twist and pervert it, without being called out
on it.And please, save us from posting some random, alleged quote,
taken out of context, to try and support the obvious distorted doctrine put
forth above.Instead of worrying about what the Mormon
"worldview" is of those scriptures, perhaps you should be more concerned
with what your own "worldview" is of 2 Nephi 9:27.
@Skeptic----You're right. That was an un-Christian thing to say. Apology.
I just wish people would not give up when they attempt to "prove" or
"test" God, and then say that if He didn't answer them, then He
didn't answer anyone. Stay on your knees until He answers! A God that
will answer ME, will answer ANYone, if you don't give up and walk away.
Vanka, methinks thou doth protest too much.Studying science, I see
evidence of divine influence, whereas some see evidence of non-existence. The
atheist says an infinite number of universes exist with different constants and
laws, but no one is there to criticize the poor design. But, that idea is an
intellectual cop-out (superstition), says one scientist. It avoids dealing with
the infinite elegance. I think we have a real choice to make with
our beliefs, and that choice reveals our hearts. Do we choose hope or despair?
Interestingly, the story of hope empowers human action and increases happiness,
charity, and health. I am sure for Dan Peterson, the choice of hope leads to a
better life, and it does for me too. When I am confronted with
trials, by turning to God for strength, I have learned things of great value.And, I swear, at times I can hear the voice of God ask me to do things
that are good, that I would not have done on my own.
Hospitality…. Thanks you for your kind thought, but I don't think I
am right, and I don't think that you are wrong. I just don't know and
I just don't think others do either, and if there is a God ( and if he has
to be a Mormon designed god or some other religious groups interpretation) then
perhaps he just doesn't want earthlings to know. But, if there be or not
be a god; I believe all the hateful battling between and amongest the different
religions is detrimental to human nature of loving and kindness to all man and
RE: if it truly affects all other things but cannot be affected, there appears
little point in praying to it. One might as well pray to a rock.In
the area of metaphysics the answer can never lie in the word “God, Modern
men are trying to find answers just in the word God and in god-words. The
answer is not in the use of the word, but in its content: what God has told us
concerning himself as being the infinite personal God of the true
Trinity(tri-une).Christianity there is this area of morals, as in
existence, the answer of concerning an original monism but present dualism .
This rests on God being good, and creating everything good, but that a
non-programmed (fallen) creature revolted and brought into existence the present
dualism of good and evil. Yet they are not equal, for evil is contrary to the
character of God, which was the original moral monism.Man is not
just metaphysically small(finite) but morally guilty and has true moral guilt
and needs a solution and that was Christ’s substitutionary propitiatory
death or the whole thing has no meaning.
gcrobmd wrote:"Vanka, methinks thou doth protest too
much."I'm not particularly interested in what you think.
Your comment suggests you flirt with irrationality on a regular basis.