The Godhead being one in purpose.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

I don't worship a 30% God.

You just worship one that's not real.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

yuck

How very 4th grade of you.

Or maybe you just want to seem above the fray, judgmental, dismissive, and condescending.

Have you read Deleuze? Heidegger? Whitehead? Spinoza?

How about not just dropping in to pass judgment on something one of us writes? How about not just being a jerk? How about actually engaging in a discussion of ideas?

It would certainly be a change of pace for you.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

I don't worship a 30% God.

As though this is what my thinking boils down to.

How pompous of you.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

How very 4th grade of you.

Or maybe you just want to seem above the fray, judgmental, dismissive, and condescending.

Have you read Deleuze? Heidegger? Whitehead? Spinoza?

How about not just dropping in to pass judgment on something one of us writes? How about not just being a jerk? How about actually engaging in a discussion of ideas?

It would certainly be a change of pace for you.

you need to chill, bro. Yuck is a concise expression of distaste for the ideas of process philosophy. nothing personal.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought our doctrine is that it was the Father's plan and Christ fulfilled the role, rather than the other way around.

That would make for a good topic of discussion.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

you need to chill, bro. Yuck is a concise expression of distaste for the ideas of process philosophy. nothing personal.

What have you read in that discipline? There is a lot of truth in the observations of process philosophers and to simply discard it with "yuck" shows a lack of intellectual maturity.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by jay santos

--Christ formulated the plan that he would sacrifice and die for man
--Christ proposed his plan to the Father, pleading the case, and essentially causing mercy to overpower justice
--Father accepts Christ's plan

Originally Posted by Tex

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought our doctrine is that it was the Father's plan and Christ fulfilled the role, rather than the other way around.

Does this boil down to the line "here I am, send me?" Because that can be interpreted as either party proposing the plan.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Does this boil down to the line "here I am, send me?" Because that can be interpreted as either party proposing the plan.

I look at it like it was the Father's plan all along. But if you're looking for a sequence of events, the Father had to wait until the Son proposed the exact plan, in order to work.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What have you read in that discipline? There is a lot of truth in the observations of process philosophers and to simply discard it with "yuck" shows a lack of intellectual maturity.

It's a school of thought not a discipline.

Yuck is a succinct way of saying,

I had an intro to process theology in Paulsen's 415 class. They have a lot in common with us and provide a rational basis for some of our beliefs. But the entire notion of a "self-surpassing" God has already been debunked by McConkie. And the God I know from experience is not a god who can't do this, can't do that. Furthermore, I'm a strict positivist, so any god birthed out of philosophical notions, is, well, you know...

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

It's a school of thought not a discipline.

Yuck is a succinct way of saying,

Yeah, yeah, we know the Seven Deadly Heresies speech, not that I put any stock in it. McConkie also did a lot that discredits him in my book. So if you're relying upon McConkie, you're not on firm ground.

McConkie said a lot of hooey about the priesthood ban.

McConkie misrepresented the Adam-God concept when President Kimball asked him to disclaim it.

McConkie overstepped his bounds in writing MoDoc and committed lots of errors, so just because McConkie and the fundies said, doesn't make it so. JFS and McConkie are modern day Irenaeuses', who would say what they wanted in order to win the argument.

Nothing inherently wrong with positivism, but if you're a strict positivist, that says a lot.