Is the definition of God as "The Law or Order sustaining reality" compatible with the biblical text?

[Vilferatus]

Hello everyone,

I would like to open a debate on whether a specific philosophical definition of God aligns with the narrative and theological framework found in the scriptures.

To ensure a productive debate and avoid semantic confusion, let us establish the following framework:


Major Assumptions for this Thread:

* Participants agree to analyze this strictly in relation to the canonical biblical text as a cohesive narrative or theological library ("in its entirety").

* The validity of the Bible itself as a source of authority is assumed for the sake of this argument.


Key Definitions:

* God (for this proposal): The immutable Law, Principle, or cosmic Order that sustains, governs, and directs all of reality into and towards its Supreme State.

* Supreme State: The ultimate, perfected realization or fulfillment of existence (e.g., the ultimate expression of harmony, purpose, or creation).


Debate Question:
Could this specific definition of God be considered compatible with biblical teaching and the biblical text as a whole?

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #20]

I am not interested in the LDS literature, @Vilferatus, because I don't consider them to be God-inspired. Instead, I think that they are just the results of Joseph Smith's fertile mind in his rebellion against the trinitarian churches of his era.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #14]

Upon what Bible passages do you base this "model," @Vilferatus? Or is it some philosopher's idea apart from the Bible that you base it on?

It is my own model, using the information in the bible, and LDS scriptures

So you are projecting a LDS theological framework onto a model that operates under you personal bias.

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #14]

Upon what Bible passages do you base this "model," @Vilferatus? Or is it some philosopher's idea apart from the Bible that you base it on?

It is my own model, using the information in the bible, and LDS scriptures

So you are projecting a LDS theological framework onto a model that operates under you personal bias.

Nope, im not. Why do you believe that?

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #20]

I am not interested in the LDS literature, @Vilferatus, because I don't consider them to be God-inspired. Instead, I think that they are just the results of Joseph Smith's fertile mind in his rebellion against the trinitarian churches of his era.

Im not talking about LDS literature... This is my onw model.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #24]

Then, what specific teachings in LDS scriptures appeals to you, @Vilferatus? I just curious about what has influenced you. I use the Bible alone.

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #24]

Then, what specific teachings in LDS scriptures appeals to you, @Vilferatus? I just curious about what has influenced you. I use the Bible alone.

All of them, I dont care where truth comes from, as long as it makes logical sense with everything else I know is true... I dont see any contradiction between any teaching of the LDS scripture with the Bible.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #14]

Upon what Bible passages do you base this "model," @Vilferatus? Or is it some philosopher's idea apart from the Bible that you base it on?

It is my own model, using the information in the bible, and LDS scriptures

So you are projecting a LDS theological framework onto a model that operates under you personal bias.

Nope, im not. Why do you believe that?

Because your personal interpretation carries an implicit conclusion that (as has been pointed out by several posters) has no basis in scripture (as in the biblical canon). Rather than, as I encouraged you to do, examine the actual words in the text (for example of John 1:1) your starting point is decidedly philosophical , even (again has been pointed out) pantheistic, none of which has a basis in the bible canon. You seem to have made a mishmash of your personal ideology, mormon theology, sprinkled with philosophy and shy away from an actual analysis of the biblical text (at least I have not seen you take the words in the bible text and present any credible concrete evidence that they mean what you seem to "want" them to mean)

[Vilferatus]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #14]

Upon what Bible passages do you base this "model," @Vilferatus? Or is it some philosopher's idea apart from the Bible that you base it on?

It is my own model, using the information in the bible, and LDS scriptures

So you are projecting a LDS theological framework onto a model that operates under you personal bias.

Nope, im not. Why do you believe that?

Because your personal interpretation carries an implicit conclusion that (as has been pointed out by several posters) has no basis in scripture (as in the biblical canon). Rather than, as I encouraged you to do, examine the actual words in the text (for example of John 1:1) your starting point is decidedly philosophical , even (again has been pointed out) pantheistic, none of which has a basis in the bible canon. You seem to have made a mishmash of your personal ideology, mormon theology, sprinkled with philosophy and shy away from an actual analysis of the biblical text (at least I have not seen you take the words in the bible text and present any credible concrete evidence that they mean what you seem to "want" them to mean)

You failed to understand the post itself from the beginning... since you seem uncapable to read it from the original post ill copy paste for you the most relevant part to understand how you are commiting a methodological mistake:

"Key Definitions:

* God (for this proposal): The immutable Law, Principle, or cosmic Order that sustains, governs, and directs all of reality into and towards its Supreme State.

* Supreme State: The ultimate, perfected realization or fulfillment of existence (e.g., the ultimate expression of harmony, purpose, or creation).


Debate Question:
Could this specific definition of God be considered compatible with biblical teaching and the biblical text as a whole?"

If you read it, the post is inviting you to work on a hypothetical scenario to contrast that definition with the bible text... you are just refusing to do the excersice because of your dogmas.

[JehovahsWitness]

You failed to understand the post itself from the beginning...

* God (for this proposal): The immutable Law, Principle, or cosmic Order that sustains, governs, and directs all of reality into and towards its Supreme State.

I understood your post since I have been able to read for some time. I also understood the debate question.

Debate Question:
Could this specific definition of God be considered compatible with biblical teaching and the biblical text as a whole?"

And answered the above question with the response "No, it could not" , presenting clearly the scriptural reasons why. You proceeded to object to that response, presenting ideas based on (what I can only presume were) the forementioned mishmash of pseudo-philosophy, Mormon confirmation bias and your own theological presuppositions. I invited you to better analyse the text you asked about; namely the biblical canon, and specifically John 1:1 which you had presented as the basis for your objection.

Since you failed to do so, I assume you have no interest in examining any ideas that challenge your confirmation bias

JW

CONFIRMATION BIAS

Confirmation bias is the psychological tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and remember information that matches your pre-existing beliefs while ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts them

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to Vilferatus in post #26]

Well, here are some of the teachings given to us by ex-Mormons, @Vilferatus, for your information:

1. For them, God is three Persons but not one God.

2. In their beliefs, if we are good Mormons, we can become gods too.

3. God the Father has a physical body and lives on a planet in outer space with a Mother-god, both of whom produce the souls of Mormon babies.

4. These ideas of Joseph Smith are some of the reasons they have secret ceremonies in Salt Lake City, where visitors cannot enter the Holy of Holies, where only good Mormons can worship.

5. Joseph Smith claims that the angel Moroni gave him the tablets of the Book of Mormon, which says that Jesus visited the Native American tribes after his resurrection, whereas those tribes have none of that event in their traditions.

6. These are just some of the Mormon beliefs that contradict the Bible and the Christian faith.

7. The Mormon faith is a cult that denies the truths of the Bible and controls its members so that anyone who leaves their group is persecuted like most cults.