Adding to the Bible?

[_Themis]

sure it is, it is physiologically impossible to have an unbias, therefore reliable, reevaluation. Chemicals in the body and mind will obfuscate any "reality".

So another words it is possible. No one said one is going to free from bias, although for many of us we still had our bias in favor of the church.

again, "honesty" is a delusion created by physiological, chemical, reactions - a "pure" conception is impossible. To investigate one's self with the same inconsistent and unreliable physiological mechanisms (ie. brain) that produced the delusion in the first place is absurd and illogical.

Ah the nothing is real argument. Good luck with that. I am well aware of some of the limitations, yet your posts don't really support that you do.

the conclusion is as flawed as the original experience. Replacing one delusion with another is not a resolution. You have no means by which you can escape the flawed instruments of your perceptions.....according to your own theory.

Again we see the nothing is real. To bad you don't at least believe what you are trying to preach here. Even though that is what I conclude based on what I know or don't know, I am open to other possibilities. I see you don't really want to carry this out to it's logical end.

of course you do...that is the essence of a delusion...the chemicals in your brain have combined to reassure you of its carefully constructed reality.

Incorrect. My bias was in favor of the church so it should have lead me to continue with what I wanted to believe.

my criticism was correct, and your statement is still incorrect, no matter how many times you repeat it...the idea that one paradigm can be used to measure another paradigm or that either can be valid methods of evaluating the other is absurd and reflects an inadequate understanding of either.
One does not use Moh's scale to measure blood pressure, and that does not diminish its meaning.

It still is incorrect no matter how many times you want to deny it. It's a weak attempt to protect your beliefs. Certainly any theological argument that claims universal truths can be evaluated by secular means. You cannot separate them. Sure some claims are vague enough that we cannot evaluate them currently through secular means, but many can. This was Joseph's mistake.

[_subgenius]

The real problem is not sign seeking. It's all the signs that show one's beliefs are not correct. At this time one may wisely reevaluate those spiritual experiences.

there are no signs that show LDS spiritual beliefs to be incorrect.

Not at all. I acknowledge that many religions including LDS think it is fine to seek spiritual signs but not physical. MY point above was just the bring to light that for many like me, we were not seeking physical signs, but we did come across signs that showed our beliefs(LDS) incorrect. The point being it was not a lack of physical signs that caused a change in beliefs, but signs that showed the beliefs wrong.

what signs? physical signs that contradicted spiritual ones? or physical signs that contradicted physical signs?...and therefore one decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

You went to far. The physical can have it's own evidence that shows certain claimed truths as false, even though many may believe them true through their spiritual experiences. The fact people can have conflicting beliefs shows just how unreliable they are.

reliable how? You always seem to rely on the subjective nature of all experiences but insist that reliable must equal objective, correct? Conflicting beliefs does not speak to any sort of "reliability", it just means thee is a conflict when one view those beliefs against the idea of an "objective" belief.
Certain claimed physical truths may also be be proven false by spiritual truths...for example, the Resurrection. A lack of physical evidence does not influence that conflict at all, nor does it mean that the spiritual truth is wrong, if anything it simply reinforces that the spiritual truth is governing.

Not really, but I just don't ignore the physical when it doesn't support what I want to believe.

so, not really but yes really? talk about conflicting messages.
obviously you have decided that anything without a physical confirmation can not be considered "true" or "real"...and that anything that is contradicted by something physical renders it to be false - that is to say, whenever a conflict between physical and spiritual occurs, you believe the spiritual must always be what is in error.
So, yes, your argument is not only stuck in the physical realm, but it is wholly dependent on that "paradigm" and therefore you suffer from not from having your feet planted firmly on the ground, but having your head stuck in it.

[_subgenius]

It still is incorrect no matter how many times you want to deny it. It's a weak attempt to protect your beliefs. Certainly any theological argument that claims universal truths can be evaluated by secular means. You cannot separate them. Sure some claims are vague enough that we cannot evaluate them currently through secular means, but many can. This was Joseph's mistake.

read for comprehension, my post is merely the application of your own philosophy. It is absurd in its application, and by your own admission you can not prove that anything you consider to be true is nothing more than a bio-chemical hallucination. Even what you insist is true is impossible for you to prove...physically or otherwise.
I on the other hand do believe that there are universal truths....and the simple act of me being able to "choose otherwise" is the first proof.

[_Themis]

read for comprehension, my post is merely the application of your own philosophy. It is absurd in its application, and by your own admission you can not prove that anything you consider to be true is nothing more than a bio-chemical hallucination. Even what you insist is true is impossible for you to prove...physically or otherwise.

It is not my philosophy, and you were the one to bring it up. I think the physical senses do give us a representation of reality even if it is not perfect and we can't be 100% sure about it. Whats funny is you do the same thing with everyday living, but when it comes to certain religious beliefs you want a different playing field.

I on the other hand do believe that there are universal truths....and the simple act of me being able to "choose otherwise" is the first proof.

Talk about delusions.

I bet you cannot even articulate why you think being able to choose is evidence or proof of any universal truths. by the way I do believe there are universal truth, but I don't try to hide them from criticisms. Also truth is in the proposition.

[_jo1952]

I do remember. I also remember that you didn't really provide anything to support what you want to believe. Even this statement is without substance and just a bunch of assertions meant to dodge the issues you cannot handle. If anyone disagrees with you, you just pull the you don't understand. You will need to do better then that around here. Many of us have spent decades as believing LDS, so we understand quite a bit. by the way I am not sure most LDS are going to buy into God giving people conflicting messages.

Please do not misrepresent my comments. Your ranting is not addressing the issues of the difference between worldly understanding vs spiritual understanding. Nor have I stated that God gives conflicting messages; as He does not.

I would offer that you have so far been unable to prove, even in a worldly way, that I have not received spiritual Truth. Just because you "say" that I have not reeks of the argument fallicies you accuse me of.

I realize you are driven and obsessed with the desire to destroy man's belief in God. Your negative desires come from darkness; and this darkness blinds you. I pray that your heart will soften and that you will be drawn to the Light so that it will be Light that you will desire to share, rather than darkness.

Blessings,

jo

[_Themis]

Please do not misrepresent my comments.

If I have it's not intentional. It can be hard to see where someone is coming from.

Your ranting is not addressing the issues of the difference between worldly understanding vs spiritual understanding.

I am open to anyone who can articulate what they think the difference is.

Nor have I stated that God gives conflicting messages; as He does not.

It did seem to be what you were implying. I see plenty of people who have conflicting spiritual truths and are just as convinced they are right.

I would offer that you have so far been unable to prove, even in a worldly way, that I have not received spiritual Truth. Just because you "say" that I have not reeks of the argument fallicies you accuse me of.

I am not sure I said that I had proven it. I do bring up many things that question it.

I realize you are driven and obsessed with the desire to destroy man's belief in God.

Not at all, but I understand why you would think so. I am more interested in truth.



Your negative desires come from darkness; and this darkness blinds you. I pray that your heart will soften and that you will be drawn to the Light so that it will be Light that you will desire to share, rather than darkness.

Blessings,

jo

[_Themis]

Please do not misrepresent my comments.

If I have it's not intentional. It can be hard to see where someone is coming from.

Your ranting is not addressing the issues of the difference between worldly understanding vs spiritual understanding.

I am open to anyone who can articulate what they think the difference is.

Nor have I stated that God gives conflicting messages; as He does not.

It did seem to be what you were implying. I see plenty of people who have conflicting spiritual truths and are just as convinced they are right.

I would offer that you have so far been unable to prove, even in a worldly way, that I have not received spiritual Truth. Just because you "say" that I have not reeks of the argument fallicies you accuse me of.

I am not sure I said that I had proven it. I do bring up many things that question it.

I realize you are driven and obsessed with the desire to destroy man's belief in God.

Not at all, but I understand why you would think so. I am more interested in truth.

Your negative desires come from darkness; and this darkness blinds you. I pray that your heart will soften and that you will be drawn to the Light so that it will be Light that you will desire to share, rather than darkness.

My heart is softer now then as a believer. Funny how that works, and I was a good member, or at least I hope I was.

[_LittleNipper]

Regardless of which source you choose to believe as your time-line as to when the books of the Bible were written, all of the Bible still needs to be looked at in order to make sense of your interpretation of it:

Acts 2:17 (KJV)

And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

The above passage does not appear to have occurred by the time the books of the Bible were canonized. Thus, the interpretation of the teaching in the Revelation wherein it warns man not to change or add to what was revealed within the Revelation itself, as opposed to general continuing revelation from God, is warranted. In other words, we should not try to change John's Revelation. The warning covers only that Revelation; not future revelation.

Blessings,

jo

What you said is true in that this event has not happened yet; however, the last days can be in the distant future of the MILLENIAL KINGDOM AGE. That would place it after the "catching away" (or Rapture ) of the CHURCH and a seven year TRIBULATION PERIOD and the thousand year MILLENIUM KINGDOM AGE which takes us to ARMEGGEDON (the final battle). There are at least 1007 years between today and those LAST DAYS ---- should the LORD Jesus Christ return tomorrow.

[_gdemetz]

You have a false evangelical interpretation of the scriptures, Nipper. The 42 months period in Revelation 13 is a prophetic time period (see Clarke's Commentary, non Mormon). Daniel;'s prophesies are accurate. He sees the restoration of the church and kingdom in the last days "in the days of these kings" representing by the feet of the image, a time after the Roman Empire). He also sees, as recorded in the seventh chapter, this restored kingdom turning over power to Christ for His millennial reign as He comes to earth WITH the clouds of heaven. There will be no one world government in which people receive a mark in their right hands and foreheads. This is evangelical BS, which is what happens when there are many churches built up for gain with no true prophet to guide them. They have grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted the scriptures, and they don't even bother to check into it deeper by reading their own commentaries!

[_jo1952]

What you said is true in that this event has not happened yet; however, the last days can be in the distant future of the MILLENIAL KINGDOM AGE. That would place it after the "catching away" (or Rapture ) of the CHURCH and a seven year TRIBULATION PERIOD and the thousand year MILLENIUM KINGDOM AGE which takes us to ARMEGGEDON (the final battle). There are at least 1007 years between today and those LAST DAYS ---- should the LORD Jesus Christ return tomorrow.

There is so much that I would love to share my beliefs and thoughts on concerning your response. I'm not sure the owner of this thread wants to see this though. Perhaps on a new thread?

I will comment, however, that I believe the Bible reveals many patterns and levels of understanding in what is already written. One of the patterns which has been revealed in the Bible is that God continues to communicate with us throughout the different dispensations.

I also believe that God's communication is not only with the House of Israel, or with the church Jesus established in Jerusalem, or in the Restored Church. I believe He communicates with all of mankind all over the earth, from within and from without all religions; and that He has done so since the beginning of not just this world, but in all worlds.

Blessings,

jo