The Right Scoop
My claim isn’t that God’s elusiveness is irrelevant, but that it has a specific purpose, which is related to the bringing about of man’s immortality and eternal life. Agreed that an omniscient and omnipotent being has the power you suggest. But would say that the power is not typically exercised how we might think. Eg. Isaiah 55:9.
Eternal life has more to it than I suggested. The desire of God isn’t simply to have man be immortal and with him, but for man to be immortal, with him, and like him. To be like him, it was necessary for us to gain a body and gain experience, and be tested, outside of his presence. Eg. Abr. 3:24-25.
Agreed that belief and disobedience can go hand in hand. Eg. James 2:19. Satan also believes in God (knows that he exists) but rebelled against him. I believe that faith, as used in the scriptures, usually refers to not only belief, but belief and obedience put together. Eg. James 2:20, 26.
I don’t think I’m claiming that that faith is necessarily intrinsically better than concrete knowledge in terms of character development. I would say both are essential character traits. Some times something that starts as faith becomes knowledge later on. What I am claiming is that to only believe and disobey is better than to know and disobey, because the consequences at judgment day are not the same. Eg. Alma 32:19.
I can’t really contest any of your points about the creation, they appear to be reasonable. However, my conviction of the existence of God isn’t based upon or undermined by the claim about plants, the claim about dirt, the rib, or the longevity of years. Believing in miracles and in God’s omnipotence, it is no stretch for me to believe that he had the power to do what is claimed. Agreed that the manifestations of that power or the performance of miracles may appear to contradict the laws we associate with science.
Noah’s Ark also would have required miracles from start to finish.
Apparently the translation for unicorn could also have been rendered as buffalo, bison, or wild ox. Eg. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/34/7a .
There appear to be a number of different potential translations for dragon too. Eg. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/deut/32/33b (serpents); http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ps/44/19a (jackals); http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jer/51/34a (sea-monster); http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rev/12/7d (devil).
You say “no evidence” of the enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt. But I assume you are not counting the historical records kept by the Jews, and that the evidence that you seek would be archaeological.
Hmm, good point about the plant life prior to the fall. I don’t have an answer to that.
It is no more difficult to believe in Matthew 27:52 than it is to believe that Jesus resurrected. Both require miraculous power, not within mankind's ability to explain with it's understanding of the laws of science.
I think “moved” can have more than one meaning in Psams 93.
I can’t find 2 Esdras in the KJV.
2 Samuel 22:8 sounds kind of metaphorical. Foundation might have more than one meaning. Also, right now might be a good time to point out that I believe that scripture may well have been recorded by people with imperfections, imperfect knowledge, and imperfect perspective of what's going on around them, and still be the recordings based on that person having received a revelation from God.
Amos 8 would also require a miracle, if it is literal.
I assume that you wouldn’t find Joshua 10:13 any more palatable if it said that the earth stopped moving. Either way, this passage too would require a miracle.
I don’t know what Matthew 24:29 means. Could it refer to the intrusion into our atmosphere of things that the people at the time would have described as stars?
Don’t know about Judges 5:20, could have been the recorders way of describing what they saw, albeit far from perfectly, as referenced above.
I think if you receive a message of God, you will be able to distinguish it from something schizophrenic. While I’ve never suffered from schizophrenia so I don’t know quite what they are hearing, I think the voice of the Holy Ghost is distinguishable because it is still and small. 1 Kings 19:12.
I’m continuing to ponder the killing issue. I know, you're not holding your breath, EL OH EL.
In any event, with what little I have to offer, allow me to refer you to that being that has much to offer. Eg. James 1:5.
I look forward to looking at the many references that you made and responding where I can, when I am not at work. You obviously make good points on many counts.
You have the correct passage. Specifically, I'm referring to the test of "abiding by its precepts".
There is an explanation for apostates, meaning those who initially come to a knowledge of something that is true (related to spiritual matters), and then fall away from (or reject) a knowledge of it, both in the Book of Mormon, and expanded upon in other scripture, which I can refer you to. In any event, you'll come across several discussions of that issue if you engage the Book of Mormon.
I've actually developed an interest in knowing what other texts make the same specific claim as Joseph Smith regarding some text. I'm well aware that I can find plenty of Evangelicals who will say something similar about the Bible, plenty of Muslims who will say something similar about the Koran, and so on. I think the statement by Joseph Smith is unique because he was the recognized authority of the faith, and he was making a specific comparison to all other books on earth. If you can direct me to statements of similarly situated persons making analogous claims, I'd be interested to know of them and/or their statements.
Still in the realm of the assumptions that you're conceding, as to the question of whether God wants us to know the source of inspiration, the answer is yes, but that doesn't guarantee that the earth's inhabitants will necessarily come to that knowledge.
One reason this "yes" is qualified is that God's ultimate goal with regard to the human race is to bring to pass their immortality (living forever with resurrected body) and eternal life (living forever with a resurrected body in the presence of God). There are plenty of scenarios that exist where us having absolute knowledge of God as the source of inspiration does not further that goal. One example would be the scenario where someone chooses to refuse to follow God's directive even after coming to have a certain knowledge of his existence. To have a sure knowledge of God and to openly rebel against him would do not help an individual to obtain eternal life and would play a part in his being unable to dwell with God. Thus, God has an interest in making his existence known in ways that would help the attainment of his ultimate goal, which necessarily requires the exercise and implementation of faith on the part of human kind.
Can you identify specifically what scientific discoveries you believe contradict the bible? The most obvious that you may be suggesting is the "created in 6 days" claim. Without suggesting that that is the only legitimate question, let me preemptively note that there is are many reasons to conclude that one "day" of creation time does not equal one "day" of our time.
I will agree that it is not by the typical senses that knowledge of God comes. The knowledge comes by communication from one spirit to another spirit. In order for knowledge to come in that way, there has to be at least an experiment with that method of discovery.
I would agree that God also has a desire for acclaim but would say that his is not self-destructive, but related to his ultimate goal, the above-mentioned. The reason for Satan's desire for acclaim was to supplant the authority of God, and his continuing desire is to visit misery upon his victims.
You're question about the reason for the God of the Old Testament being the purported cause of so many deaths in the times of the Old Testament is something I will have to ponder. The reason that Satan apparently causes few deaths is more straightforward. He is much less interested, if at all, in physical death, than he is in spiritual death (preventing people from obtaining eternal life). Additionally, I don't believe that he actually has the power to independently kill someone. You are better read on the Old Testament than I. Perhaps you can give me references to the few instances where it says he caused the deaths.
As to the proposal, Joseph Smith made a claim some time in the 1800s. The claim is contained in paragraph 6 of the Introduction of the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. My proposal is that you test that claim, particularly, the last 17 words of the paragraph. You can test that claim anyway that you feel constitutes a good faith experiment, but if you want me to make suggestions I can. I add my claim that the claim made by Joseph Smith is accurate, and, therefore that God exists.
If you are convinced that your desire to be convinced is sincere, then I have a challenge for you, if you are willing to undertake it. It would be time consuming and would require serious effort, but I think would be worth your time and effort.
If you are convinced that your desire to be convinced is sincere, then I have a challenge for you, if you are willing to undertake it. It would be time consuming and would require serious effort, but I think would be worth your time and effort.
If you are convinced that your desire to be convinced is sincere, then I have a challenge for you, if you are willing to undertake it. It would be time consuming and would require serious effort, but I think would be worth your time and effort.
If you are convinced that your desire to be convinced is sincere, then I have a challenge for you, if you are willing to undertake it. It would be time consuming and would require serious effort, but I think would be worth your time and effort.
Can you be sure that a higher power had no role in inspiring persons on earth that developed the many inventions that have flowered so much over the past centuries?
If not, then you might acknowledge that there is plenty of room for debate as to just exactly what caused what in pulling us out of times on earth that were so devoid of enlightenment. No doubt it was the rational scientific principles applied were the vehicle in developing inventions, but could the vehicle have been put to good use if the idea hadn't sprouted and developed in the first place? The question ultimately becomes what triggered the ideas that resulted in inventions. I would be not surprised at all if for every inventor who is convinced that the idea for his invention came from him and him alone, there is at least one other inventor who believes the idea that sparked his invention came from a higher power. I doubt that speculation, while not based on knowledge, is far from the truth.
Perhaps I mis-wrote when I suggested that one of Satan's (I believe in his existence) tactics was to convince his victims of his non-existence. Perhaps, he gets fewer "rocks off" doing that than convincing his victims that his deceptions don't originate from a devil, meaning, an evil entity. I imagine that given the attributes he displayed prior to becoming the father of lies (including a self-destructive desire for acclaim), he is more interested in being acknowledged and mistaken for an angel of light than for a non-entity.
お勉強になりました、 reading your post.
You are confusing "Black" witchcraft or sorcery with Wicca. No where in the Wiccan Rede is any stated or alluded to connection to Christianity. There are individuals and some covens that practice Black Sorcery connected to Satanism, however they are not Wiccans. We have about seven Covens here and I've known and know people that belong to each of them none of them even acknowledge the existence of Satan or Jesus Christ, they are polytheist and worship nature,their "spellcraft" consists of prayers and rituals dedicated to what they call the "Mother Goddess" and facets of nature, potions and herbal remedies, some that date before the coming of Christianity. The term "witch" was hung as a moniker on village midwifes who also served as village healers who used their knowledge of medicinal herbs to aid those of their village. By the way you are familiar with the origins of the word "pagan", it's origin is the name used to refer to peoples living in rural areas "country folk". It was the Christian Church of the Dark Ages that first began using to the term to apply to "non-believers",these pagans or country folk held on to these nature centered beliefs and practices for several hundred years even after converting to Christianity. Until in the 15th century when Jacob Sprenger and Heinrich Kramer wrote the infamous Malleus Maleficarum in 1486. This tome nearly depopulated the region that would eventually become Germany of its female population,in fact in a couple of villages it led to all of the women being put to death as witches. While Kramer,a Inquisitor of the Catholic Church, he was denounced by the Office of the Inquisition in 1490, due to his over-zealousness in pursuit of witches, the book continued it's bloody path until well into the reformation. All due to someone who felt these nature worshippers were linked to Satan in ignorance and fear. If you were one these individuals would you not work to hide your practices to avoid being murdered?
You are confusing "Black" witchcraft or sorcery with Wicca. No where in the Wiccan Rede is any stated or alluded to connection to Christianity. There are individuals and some covens that practice Black Sorcery connected to Satanism, however they are not Wiccans. We have about seven Covens here and I've known and know people that belong to each of them none of them even acknowledge the existence of Satan or Jesus Christ, they are polytheist and worship nature,their "spellcraft" consists of prayers and rituals dedicated to what they call the "Mother Goddess" and facets of nature, potions and herbal remedies, some that date before the coming of Christianity. The term "witch" was hung as a moniker on village midwifes who also served as village healers who used their knowledge of medicinal herbs to aid those of their village. By the way you are familiar with the origins of the word "pagan", it's origin is the name used to refer to peoples living in rural areas "country folk". It was the Christian Church of the Dark Ages that first began using to the term to apply to "non-believers",these pagans or country folk held on to these nature centered beliefs and practices for several hundred years even after converting to Christianity. Until in the 15th century when Jacob Sprenger and Heinrich Kramer wrote the infamous Malleus Maleficarum in 1486. This tome nearly depopulated the region that would eventually become Germany of its female population,in fact in a couple of villages it led to all of the women being put to death as witches. While Kramer,a Inquisitor of the Catholic Church, he was denounced by the Office of the Inquisition in 1490, due to his over-zealousness in pursuit of witches, the book continued it's bloody path until well into the reformation. All due to someone who felt these nature worshippers were linked to Satan in ignorance and fear. If you were one these individuals would you not work to hide your practices to avoid being murdered?
The real question here is for the Democrats. Is this all you've got? If it is you are DOOMED.
LOL I was trying to recall the metal bands of that era that either used a pentacle or pentagram in their logo or on an album cover. Those two were the first to come to mind, although given time I could probably come up with a couple of dozen more. ;)
I agree completely. Then again, this is clearly more desperation by those who seek to destroy her. I think it's going to be non-stop defending character attacks for her and it's sad, but true.
Hmmm...be careful what you wish for!
In all of history though who has ever made the claim of loving humanity so completely that they would come down to earth as a human to identify with all mankind and then WILLINGLY give up their life for them...and then RISE from death? And we have the apostles that testify to this and then the Church Fathers and so forth and so on...God's love is so powerful that it can raise the dead to life...but more importantly it changes hearts...there are millions of people all over the world that have met this one and only Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God!
My question wasn't to inquire as to the nature of the Null Hypothesis but as to the reason that you embrace it.
Addressing your modified statement that you reject the existence of Satan because you have no reason to accept the claim, what evidence would you require as sufficient reason? Would the testimony of an honest person that Satan existed influence you? A thousand honest persons? If so, what would the substance of that testimony have to be? That the person(s) saw Satan? Felt Satan's power? Something else? If you would reject the testimony of one or more honest person, what type of evidence would influence you?
As to your response to Sackett, getting at what I inquired above when I asked you why you rely heavily upon the Null Hypothesis, why do you embrace "the epistemic philosophy of the Pragmatists (late 19th, early 20th centuries)"?
My question wasn't to inquire as to the nature of the Null Hypothesis but as to the reason that you embrace it.
Addressing your modified statement that you reject the existence of Satan because you have no reason to accept the claim, what evidence would you require as sufficient reason? Would the testimony of an honest person that Satan existed influence you? A thousand honest persons? If so, what would the substance of that testimony have to be? That the person(s) saw Satan? Felt Satan's power? Something else? If you would reject the testimony of one or more honest person, what type of evidence would influence you?
As to your response to Sackett, getting at what I inquired above when I asked you why you rely heavily upon the Null Hypothesis, why do you embrace "the epistemic philosophy of the Pragmatists (late 19th, early 20th centuries)"?
My question wasn't to inquire as to the nature of the Null Hypothesis but as to the reason that you embrace it.
Addressing your modified statement that you reject the existence of Satan because you have no reason to accept the claim, what evidence would you require as sufficient reason? Would the testimony of an honest person that Satan existed influence you? A thousand honest persons? If so, what would the substance of that testimony have to be? That the person(s) saw Satan? Felt Satan's power? Something else? If you would reject the testimony of one or more honest person, what type of evidence would influence you?
As to your response to Sackett, getting at what I inquired above when I asked you why you rely heavily upon the Null Hypothesis, why do you embrace "the epistemic philosophy of the Pragmatists (late 19th, early 20th centuries)"?
I think this renders the entire subject moot. US Constitution Article VI "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
3 things:
First, read Deuteronomy 4:2 "2 Ye shall not aadd unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
Does this mean anything after Deuteronomy is not inspired?
Second, the book of John is believed to have been written after the book of Revelation. Does this mean the John is not inspired?
Third, each book was written as a separate book, so when it says "don't add anything after this, this is the end of it," it is most likely referring to just the book of Revelation instead of referring to all scripture.
After understanding these three things and reading the Book of Mormon with an open mind and heart, it's pretty easy to accept as true scripture.
3 things:
First, read Deuteronomy 4:2 "2 Ye shall not aadd unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
Does this mean anything after Deuteronomy is not inspired?
Second, the book of John is believed to have been written after the book of Revelation. Does this mean the John is not inspired?
Third, each book was written as a separate book, so when it says "don't add anything after this, this is the end of it," it is most likely referring to just the book of Revelation instead of referring to all scripture.
After understanding these three things and reading the Book of Mormon with an open mind and heart, it's pretty easy to accept as true scripture.
Let's see; we are supposed to be concerned that O'Donnell dated someone in high school who was in wiccan, but no probem with Coon being a self-avowed Marxist; Scott Brown posing nude for some male magazine; and ummm, well on and on like Ted Kennedy driving drunk and killing some young woman while married and having an affair...hmmm...good old double standard busily at work.
No,I do too.But as a parasite what could I know? By the way didn't Joesph Smith dabble in the occult,use see'er stones and engage in money digging before god started talking to him?
No,I do too.But as a parasite what could I know? By the way didn't Joesph Smith dabble in the occult,use see'er stones and engage in money digging before god started talking to him?
Personally, I see this as a great "to do" about nothing. Wicca is a modern variation on the old pagan veneration of Nature nothing more. Wiccan's see Satan as a "construct" of Christianity, used to put a face to evil, they actually don't believe in the existence of Satan just as they do not believe in Christ. The believe that people have the capacity for both good and evil and that people make a conscious choice to do one or the other. As for the "Satanic altar" thing,the boy was probably into the darker tinged heavy metal of the time as a lot of young people were at that time. In other words this entire thing is a non-issue.
Why do you advocate the Null Hypothesis as your primary truth finding function (if that's accurate)? When did you embrace it?
I wasn't using the "imagining exercise" to provide positive evidence, and I made no comment about, and my statements did not rely on any assumption regarding, the issue of whether there was evidential disproof. I was using the imagining exercise solely to acknowledge the possibility that you would answer that you can't imagine Satan's existence so you therefore can't answer the question of whether you can assess whether Satan has successfully performed a deception.
Good Afternoon Daniel (and ALL),My young friend, you have PROVEN, across a wide vista of subject matter to be:1. Very Intelligent2. Extremely Articulate3. Notably Cogent in your thought processes4. NOT Unkind in your manner of presentation AND debate...I both admire AND thank you for that.May I simply suggest something for you to consider in this matter (especially so, since you invoked Mr. Fisher's 'Null Hypothesis').NOTE: Shame on you though (slight smile goes here) for not being truly 'scientific' in your approach to this critical facet of "belief" -vs- "NON" belief in the God who made us both, saved my worthless hide, and LOVES YOURS....remember the other side of that 'coin'? The coupling of the 'null' hypothesis ~ with the 'ALTERNATIVE' hypothesis?* To the point (and keeping in mind your 'null hypothesis' approach), I ask you to consider one, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis... and a little thing called "hand washing".* Along with that little study, review the concurrent world-devastating DISASTER potential... of spoiled beer, and another young man, name Pasteur.As you do, chew on the following (I'm an old, Southern man ~ I can say it like that):Just because you canNOT imagine (to the point of belief) something, and there is no 'evidential (good word) disproof' (of something unfalsifiable... at least not from "Nullius in verba")... THAT is not positive evidence in ANY WAY... whatsoever....as you will see very clearly when you nose around just a bit into "The Rest Of The Story" about these two fine gentlemen (hint: The dis-believing 'masters' of the bailiwick each belief~ and subsequent PROVEN theory went against ~ were ALL the very top... in their respective "scientific" community/BROTHERHOOD).You are young. I pray that God gives you time... to learn (not said in ANY WAY 'disparagingly').Your Friend,CM Sackett
Agree with the absurd use of the issue to discredit O'Donnell. Not in quite in agreement with the rationale, namely on the existence non-existence of Satan. The following is just a friendly inquiry, not intended to be confrontational.
How do you know that Satan is not real? If you can indulge and imagine the scenario in which Satan actually existed, don't you agree that it would follow that at least one of his/her/its tactics would be to convince people that he/her/it doesn't? If you can imagine that scenario, then how do you know that it is not Satan that has succeeded in convincing you that he doesn't exist?
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.